Deep Model Statistics Method for Machine Translation

ABSTRACT

In one embodiment, the invention provides a method for machine translation of a source document in an input language to a target document in an output language, comprising generating translation options corresponding to at least portions of each sentence in the input language; and selecting a translation option for the sentence based on statistics associated with the translation options.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of co-pending U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/548,214, filed Oct. 10, 2006, and U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/690,099, filed Mar. 22, 2007.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

Embodiments of the invention generally relate to the field of automatedtranslation of natural-language sentences using linguistic descriptionsand various applications in such areas as automated abstracting, machinetranslation, natural language processing, control systems, informationsearch (including on the Internet), semantic Web, computer-aidedlearning, expert systems, speech recognition/synthesis and others.

2. Description of the Related Art

Prior machine translation (MT) systems differ in the approaches andmethods that they use and also in their abilities to recognize variouscomplex language constructs and produce quality translation of textsfrom one language into another. According to their core principles,these systems can be divided into the following groups.

One of the traditional approaches is based on translation rules ortransformation rules and is called Rule-Based MT (RBMT). This approach,however, is rather limited when it comes to working with complexlanguage phenomena. In the recent years no significant breakthroughshave been achieved within this field. The best known systems of thistype are SYSTRAN and PROMPT. The known RBMT systems, however, usuallypossess restricted syntactic models and simplified dictionarydescriptions where language ambiguities are artificially removed.

Rule-based MT has evolved into Model-Based MT (MBMT) which is based onlinguistic models. Implementing a MBMT system to produce qualitytranslation demands considerable effort to create linguistic models andcorresponding descriptions for specific languages. Evolution of MBMTsystems is connected with developing complex language models on alllevels of language descriptions. The need in today's modem worldrequires translation between many different languages. Creating suchMBMT systems is only possible within a large-scale project to integratethe results of engineering and linguistic research.

Another traditional approach is Knowledge-Based MT (KBMT) which usessemantic descriptions. While the MBMT approach is based on knowledgeabout a language, the KBMT approach considers translation as a processof understanding based on real knowledge about the World. Presently,interest in Knowledge-Based Machine Translation (KBMT) has been waning.

Example-Based MT (EBMT) relates to machine translation systems usingautomated analysis of “examples”, which is very similar toStatistics-Based MT (SBMT). In recent years, the SBMT approach hasreceived a strong impetus from the following factors: appearance ofTranslation Memory (TM) systems and availability of powerful andrelatively affordable bilingual electronic resources, such as TMdatabases created by corporations and translation agencies, electroniclibraries, and specialized Internet corpora. The TM systems havedemonstrated their practical efficiency when translating recurrent textfragments on the basis of minimal knowledge about languages such thatresearchers and developers are encouraged to try and create advanced andrelatively exhaustive SBMT systems.

Most machine translation systems, both rule-based and statistics-based,concentrate on proper transfer of language information directly betweena source sentence and an output sentence and usually do not require anyfull-fledged intermediary data structures to explicate the meaning ofthe sentence being translated. For example, a system based on linguisticmodels would know how to build thousands of syntactic variants of verbphrases-constituents. A system which is based on purely statisticalapproach would not know anything about the connections between thesevariants and would not be able to obtain a correct translation of onephrase on the basis of another. In addition, most-used probabilistic(statistic) approaches and statistics-based systems have a commondrawback of taking no consideration of semantics. As a result, there isno guarantee that the translated (or generated) sentence has the samemeaning as the original sentence.

Thus, even though some linguistic approaches have been proposed, most ofthem have not resulted in any useful algorithms or industrialapplications because of poor performance in translating completesentences. Complex sentences, which may express different shades ofmeaning, or the author's attitude and/or have different styles or genre,or which may be very long and contain various punctuation marks andother special symbols, have not been successfully generated/translatedby prior art language generation programs, or machine translationsystems. It is especially difficult to translate or generate complexsentences, such as those found in technical texts, documentation,internet articles, journals, and the like and is yet to be done.

However, a system for machine translation of natural-language sentencesbetween languages may be geared toward “understanding” sentences ifcomplete syntactic and semantic sentence analysis is used, wherein acomplete “model” of the analyzed sentence is built in the process.Examples include the MT system described in U.S. patent application Ser.No. 11/548,214, filed Oct. 10, 2006 and in U.S. patent application Ser.No. 11/690,099, 11/690,102, and 11/690,104 filed Mar. 22, 2007. Thesemethods are difficult to implement and require large volumes of data tobe processed.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to methods, computer-readablemedia, devices and systems for translating a sentence from an inputlanguage into an output language. In one embodiment, a method oftranslating a sentence from one source language into another outputlanguage includes analyzing the source sentence using linguisticdescriptions of the source language, constructing a language-independentsemantic structure to represent the meaning of the source sentence, andgenerating an output sentence to represent the meaning of the sourcesentence in the output language using linguistic descriptions of theoutput language. To improve the accuracy of translation, the analysisand/or synthesis stage may include ratings and statistics obtained byanalyzing a corpus of parallel texts.

In one embodiment a machine translation system, for example, the NaturalLanguage Compiler (NLC) system—the Model-Based MT system described inU.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/548,214, filed Oct. 10, 2006 and inU.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/690,099, 11/690,102, and 11/690,104filed Mar. 22, 2007, may be used. The system provides syntacticallycoherent output. Syntactic and morphological descriptions of the inputand output languages are used for this purpose.

NLC is an “intelligent” program which can analyze both the syntax andthe semantics of a sentence. NLC employs a large number of diverselinguistic descriptions (morphological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic,etc.) to build a semantic structure of the sentence which represents themeaning of the sentence in language-independent terms, and then togenerate a corresponding sentence in the output language.

This process is intelligent, but the main problem of such systems isthat the used linguistic descriptions must be exhaustive and complete.The more complete the descriptions, the better the quality oftranslation. However, the creation of such linguistic descriptions is along and labor-intensive process, as most of the work must be donemanually. Very often, several translation options are available. Toselect not only the most accurate but also the most probable option,various ratings may be used both at the analysis and at the synthesisstage. Examples of ratings include statistics, a priori assessments oflexical meanings and various syntactical and lexical constructs whichmay be assigned manually and automatically by means of special rulesapplying. The statistics may be obtained through analysis of a taggedcorpus of parallel texts in a process known as statistical analysis.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

So that the manner in which the above recited features of the presentinvention can be understood in detail, a more particular description ofthe invention, briefly summarized above, may be had by reference toembodiments, some of which are illustrated in the appended drawings. Itis to be noted, however, that the appended drawings illustrate onlytypical embodiments of this invention and are therefore not to beconsidered limiting of its scope, for the invention may admit to otherequally effective embodiments.

FIG. 1 is a general flow chart of the machine translation processimplemented in NLC.

FIG. 2 shows an example of a syntactic structure of the sentence “Thepath brought me to the house.”

FIG. 3 shows a schematic view of the semantic structure of the sourcesentence “The path brought me to the house.”

FIG. 4 is a schematic flow chart which shows how statistics are gatheredand analyzed to train the NLC system.

FIG. 5A illustrates a flow diagram of the employing the NLC method whichuses linguistic descriptions according to one embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 5B illustrates converting the source fragment into an outputfragment through various linguistic structures employing the NLC methodwhich uses linguistic descriptions according to one embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating language descriptions according to oneexemplary embodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating morphological descriptions according toone exemplary embodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating syntactic descriptions according to oneexemplary embodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating semantic descriptions according to oneexemplary embodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating lexical descriptions according to oneexemplary embodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 11 is a lexical-morphological structure for an exemplary sentence“This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” according to one embodimentof the NLC method.

FIG. 12 is a process flow diagram illustrating rough syntactic analysisaccording to one or more embodiments of the NLC method.

FIG. 13 is an exemplary graph of generalized constituents for thesentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” according to oneembodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 14 is a process flow diagram illustrating precise syntacticanalysis according to one or more embodiments of the NLC method.

FIG. 15 is an exemplary schematic representation of a syntactic treeaccording to one embodiment of the NLC method.

FIG. 16 is an exemplary syntactic tree of the above mentioned sentence“This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.”

FIG. 17 is a best syntactic tree for the exemplary sentence extractedfrom the graph of generalized constituents from FIG. 13.

FIG. 18 is an exemplary best syntactic structure for the exemplarysentence with non-tree links generated on the basis of a syntactic treeshown on FIG. 17.

FIG. 19 is one example of the best syntactic structure with semanticparents of lexical meanings and their grammemes, non-tree linksgenerated and deep slots for the exemplary sentence.

FIG. 20 is a process flow diagram illustrating semantic analysisaccording to one or more embodiments of the NLC method.

FIG. 21 is an exemplary semantic structure with semantemes and exemplaryanalysis rules according to one or more embodiments of the NLC method.

FIG. 22 is a process flow diagram illustrating an output naturallanguage sentence synthesis according to one or more embodiments of theNLC method.

FIG. 23 is a diagram exemplifying various components of a syntacticstructure of synthesized sentence according to one or more embodimentsof the NLC method.

FIG. 24 is an exemplary surface (syntactic) structure for a synthesizedRussian sentence which correspond to English sentence “This boy issmart, he'll succeed in life.” according to one embodiment of the NLCmethod.

FIG. 25 is a block diagram of one illustrative embodiment of a computersystem where the method of translating documents can be implemented.

FIG. 26 illustrates another example of a computer system in accordancewith one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 27 is a block diagram of a translation system and its interactionwith other applications in accordance with one embodiment of theinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments of the invention provide a method and computer systemsconfigured to efficiently and completely translate a document in aninput language into an output language. The document may be translatedby means of the NLC system, which analyzes each sentence, recognizes itslinguistic structure and semantics in order to “understand” its meaning.Exhaustive linguistic descriptions are used to analyze a sentence in theinput language and to build its language-independent semantic structureand subsequently generate an output sentence in the output language.Problems of syntactical and semantic ambiguities which may appear duringthe process of translation can be reliably handled. Syntacticallycoherent output is provided by system automatically.

Maximum use of linguistic knowledge and natural language descriptionsenable generation of a language-independent semantic structure whichcontains a large amount of various data information about the meaning ofthe source sentence. The natural language descriptions may besufficiently comprehensive to cover all of language phenomena manifestedin written discourse. The syntactic structures generated for a sourcesentence and/or an output sentence are limited only by the syntax of aninput language or output language without any other artificialrestrictions.

FIG. 1 is a general flow chart of the translation process. In mostgeneral terms, the translation process consists of the following mainstages: sentence analysis 110, construction 120 of alanguage-independent semantic structure which corresponds to the meaningof the source sentence, and synthesis 130 of a sentence in the outputlanguage. The analysis 110 produces the syntactic structure of thesentence, which is a tree-like hierarchy but may also include non-treelinks. The nodes in this tree are the lexical units that make up thesentence—lexical meanings, each of which has its specific place in thesemantic hierarchy describing the world. The links in this tree are therelations among the parts of the sentence, or surface slots. FIG. 2shows an example of a syntactic structure of the sentence “The pathbrought me to the house.”

Next, at the stage 120, the syntactic structure is transformed into asemantic structure, where the lexical units of the source language aresubstituted with language-independent semantic classes, preserving theimportant properties and features of the lexical units. The syntacticrelations of the source language are also substituted withlanguage-independent notions. FIG. 3 shows a schematic view of thesemantic structure of the source sentence “The path brought me to thehouse.”

As it turns out, the results of the previous analysis may be very usefulin analyzing subsequent sentences and texts. Particularly useful isparallel analysis of sentences in two languages, or analysis ofso-called parallel texts. The parallel texts are texts in two or morelanguages where each fragment (sentence or paragraph) in one languagehas a corresponding fragment in another language. As a rule, theparallel text is an original text in one language translated intoanother language by human translation.

This is useful, because both at the analysis stage and at the synthesisstage the system has to make certain lexical choices. At the analysisstage, the system has to choose one of multiple homonyms with itscorresponding semantic class and one of multiple surface structures withits corresponding deep structure. At the synthesis stage, the system hasto choose one of multiple lexical options available in the givensemantic class. In most cases, the choices faced by the system are ofequal value and are all treated as the most likely ones.

For example, when analyzing the word combination “green hand” (=“greenspecialist”), the system must select the semantic sense “green”=“young,inexperienced, etc.” but not the sense related to class COLOR.

Often the system has to deal with grammatical homonyms, which areespecially common in English. For example, “left house” may beinterpreted either as “the house on the left” or as “a house that hasbeen left behind.” Taken out of context, both interpretations seemequally likely. On the other hand, for “left hand” the interpretations“the hand which is not right” is much more likely than “a hand that hasbeen left behind.”

During the synthesis 130, the system has to choose the most appropriateword from among multiple lexemes that belong to the same semantic classand are very close in meaning. For example, “girl” better combines with“beautiful,” “nice,” “attractive” or “pretty” than with “picturesque” or“scenic,” which belong to the same semantic class but combine with“place,” “landscape” or “view.”

The use of ratings obtained from parallel (bilingual) texts makes thischoice less arbitrary. As indicated, the ratings may comprisestatistics. In one embodiment, the system chooses the most appropriateword based on combinatorial ratings of both surface elements (i.e.lexemes, word combinations, lexical meanings, and surface slots) anddeep elements (i.e. semantic classes and deep slots).

The linguistic descriptions used cover all the constructions possible ina language. However, not all of them are equally likely to occur in atext. The purpose of the statistical analysis is to select the mostfrequent ones. A text corpus is used for this purpose. The best solutionwould be a manually tagged corpus, but large manually tagged corpora aredifficult to obtain. A corpus of parallel texts is used, i.e. texts intwo or more languages where each fragment (sentence or paragraph) in onelanguage has a corresponding fragment in another language.

Gathering statistics from parallel texts precedes the analysis andtranslation stages, and in a general case is performed independently ofthem. Statistics are gathered by comparing the sentences in the sourcelanguage with their counterparts in the target language. Both sentencesare analyzed using the same NLC method and their surface and deepstructures are built.

The method is unique because it uses statistics gathe'red by applyingthe same NLC method to analyze natural-language sentences and to comparethe obtained syntactic and semantic structures. However, also thesubject matter and style of texts to be translated may be taken intoaccount, if the translation had been preceded by gathering statisticsfrom texts that belong to the same domain (e.g. law or engineering).

FIG. 4 is a schematic flow chart which shows how statistics are gatheredand analyzed to train the NLC system. The stage 410 includes parsing(analyzing) different types of texts, including parallel texts, taggedtexts, texts with domain indication, etc. At this stage, the syntacticand semantic structures of the analyzed sentences are built and theresults are filtered to exclude marginal cases. For the parallel texts,those parsing variants are selected which meet certain predefinedrequirements.

In one embodiment of the invention, the surface structure of a sentencein the source language is compared with the surface structure of thecorresponding sentence in the target language and a correspondencebetween the surface elements is established. Likewise, the deepstructure of a sentence in the source language is compared with the deepstructure of the sentence in the target language and a correspondencebetween the deep structure elements is established. If these deepstructures are “almost identical,” the analysis results are consideredadequate and the combinability of the elements of these structures maybe used for operations involving statistics.

In another embodiment of the invention, the deep structures obtained bythe analysis are used to compute the probability (relative frequency) ofobjects of certain semantic classes being combined with objects ofanother (or the same) semantic class. In still another embodiment of theinvention, the deep structures obtained by the analysis are used tocompute the probability (relative frequency) of objects of certainsemantic classes being combined with certain deep slots (or slots of acertain class). In still another embodiment of the invention, the systemcomputes the probability (relative frequency) of objects of certainsemantic classes being combined with certain deep slots (or slots of acertain class), where the given position is filled by an object ofanother (or the same) semantic class.

At the stage 420 the statistics are gathered and analyzed, and at stage430 the computed probabilities are transformed into ratings, enteredinto a dynamically updated lexico-semantic dictionary, and, togetherwith a priori and other ratings, form the ratings of the correspondingconstructions. These ratings are used at the corresponding analysis andsynthesis stages.

Thus, the machine translation system NLC may be trained on differenttypes of texts with the aid of the same methods of syntactic andsemantic analyses. After the training the proper translation isperformed by the NLC system, employing the ratings obtained at thestatistics processing stage. The use of the obtained statistical ratingsis illustrated in the context of the NLC method which is shown in FIG.5A and in the subsequent figures.

FIG. 5A illustrates the method 500, implemented in the NLC system, fortranslating a source text, which is divided into sentences 512, from asource language into output sentences 514 in an output language viabuilding language-independent semantic structures according to anexemplary embodiment of the invention. FIG. 5B illustrates transformingof the source sentence 512 into the output sentence 514 through variousstructures according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention. FIG.5A also shows the linguistic descriptions 501-504 and the steps whichuse the statistical and other ratings 505.

As shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, the method 500 for translating a sourcesentence 512 in a source/input language into an output sentence 514includes using linguistic descriptions adapted to perform various stepsof analysis and synthesis. The linguistic descriptions may includemorphological descriptions 501, syntactic descriptions 502, lexicaldescriptions 503, and semantic descriptions 504.

At step 510, a lexical analysis is performed on the source sentence 512in a source/input language. At step 520, a lexical-morphologicalanalysis is also performed on the source sentence 512 to generate alexical-morphological structure 522 of the source sentence 512 usinginformation from the morphological descriptions 501 and the lexicaldescriptions 501 of the source language.

Then, a syntactic analysis is performed on the lexical-morphologicalstructure 522 of the source sentence 512. In one embodiment of theinvention, the syntactic analysis includes a rough syntactic analysisand a precise syntactic analysis. When analyzing the meaning of thesource sentence, a two-step analysis algorithm (e.g., rough syntacticanalysis and precise syntactic analysis) is implemented.

At step 530, the rough syntactic analysis is performed on thelexical-morphological structure 522 of the source sentence 512 togenerate a graph of generalized constituents 532. Performing the roughsyntactic analysis may require the use of the syntactical descriptions502, the lexical descriptions 503 of the source language, and thesemantic descriptions 504.

At step 540, the precise analysis is performed on the graph ofgeneralized constituents 532. The precise analysis may include, but notlimited to, generating one or more syntactic trees, obtaining preciserating scores on the base of statistical and other a priori ratings 505,for the one or more syntactic trees, generating non-tree links, andbuilding a best syntactic structure 546. Performing the precisesyntactic analysis may require the use of the syntactical descriptions502, the lexical descriptions 503, and the semantic descriptions 504.Step 544 indicates that the syntactic analysis is performed repeatedlyif the best syntactic structure 546 is not successfully built.

A precise syntactic analysis is performed on the graph of generalizedconstituents to generate one or more syntactic trees to represent thesource sentence from the graph of the generalized constituents. Thisnovel two-step syntactic analysis approach ensures the meaning of thesource sentence to be accurately represented into a best syntacticstructure which is chosen from the one or more syntactic trees. Inaddition, hypotheses for a portion of a sentence for analyzing itsmeaning and generating an appropriate language structure are verifiedwithin the hypotheses about the language structure for the wholesentence. Hypotheses are advanced and evaluated based on a system 505 ofratings, which include both a priori assessments, the more complexcomputing ratings and the statistics reflecting the frequency ofconstructions and combinability of the syntactic structure elements.This approach avoids analyzing numerous parsing variants which are knownto be invalid, such that one or more syntactic trees are rated, eachsyntactic tree representing the whole sentence, in order to select thebest syntactic structure. The best syntactic structure is the structurewhich, when verified, was given the highest integral rating.

At step 550, a semantic analysis is performed to transition the bestsyntactic structure 546 of the source sentence in the natural languageinto a language-independent semantic structure 552. Thelanguage-independent semantic structure 552 is generated to fully conveythe meaning of the source sentence in the source natural language andrepresent the source sentence in a language-independent form.

At step 560, syntactic structure synthesis is performed on thelanguage-independent semantic structure 552 to build a surface/syntacticstructure 562. The syntactic structure synthesis may include, but notlimited to, performing a lexical selection on the language-independentsemantic structure 552 using the linguistic descriptions of the outputlanguage. The syntactic structure synthesis may require the use of thesyntactical descriptions 502, the lexical descriptions 503, and thesemantic descriptions 504 of the output language.

In the process of syntactic structure synthesis 560, from the semanticclasses, which form the nodes of the semantic structure, specificrepresentatives of the classes and the specific lexemes corresponding tothem are selected. The selection is done taking into account theavailable semantic data. At this stage, the accuracy of translation andits adequacy in the target language may be increased by taking intoaccount the pragmatic information 940 about the domain that the textbelongs to and by selecting the most probable lexemes which combine bestwith one another, i.e. the lexemes and word combinations with thehighest general rating 505 including statistical rating.

At step 570, morphological synthesis is performed on thesurface/syntactic structure 562 to generate the output sentence 514. Themorphological synthesis may require the use of the morphologicaldescriptions 501 and the lexical descriptions 503 of the outputlanguage.

FIG. 6 illustrates language descriptions 610 including morphologicaldescriptions 501, lexical descriptions 503, syntactic descriptions 502,and semantic descriptions 504, and interrelationship between them. Amongthem, the morphological descriptions 501, the lexical descriptions 503,and the syntactic descriptions 502 are language-specific. Each of theselanguage descriptions 610 can be created for each source language and,taken together, they represent a model of the source language. Thesemantic descriptions 504, however, are language-independent and areused to describe language-independent semantic features of objects,meanings, processes, events, etc. in various languages and to constructlanguage-independent semantic structures.

FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary morphological descriptions. As shown, thecomponents of the morphological descriptions 501 include, but are notlimited to, word-inflexion description 710, grammatical system 720(e.g., grammemes), and word-formation description 730. In oneembodiment, grammatical system 720 includes a set of grammaticalcategories, such as, “Part of speech”, “Case”, “Gender”, “Number”,“Person”, “Reflexivity”, “Tense”, “Aspect”, etc. and their meanings,hereafter referred to as “grammemes”. For example, part of speechgrammemes may include “Adjective”, “Noun”, “Verb”, etc.; case grammemesmay include “Nominative”, “Accusative”, “Genitive”, etc.; and gendergrammemes may include “Feminine”, “Masculine”, “Neuter”, etc.

Word-inflexion description 710 describes how the main form of a wordform may change according to its case, gender, number, tense, etc. andbroadly includes all possible forms for a given word. Word-formation 730describes which new words may be generated involving a given word. Thegrammemes are units of the grammatical systems 720 and, as shown by alink 722 and a link 724, the grammemes can be used to build theword-inflexion description 710 and the word-formation description 730.

According to one aspect of the invention, when establishing syntacticrelationships for elements of a source sentence, one or more constituentmodels are used. A constituent may include a contiguous group of wordsfrom the source sentence and behaves as one entity. Each constituent mayinclude a core word and can include child constituents at lower levels.A child constituent is a dependent constituent and may be attached toother constituents (as parent constituents) for building the syntacticstructure of a source sentence.

FIG. 8 illustrates exemplary syntactic descriptions. The components ofthe syntactic descriptions 502 may include, but are not limited to,surface models 810, surface slots descriptions 820, referential andstructural control description 830, government and agreement description840, non-tree syntax description 850, and analysis rules 860. Thesyntactic descriptions 502 are used to construct possible syntacticstructures of a source sentence from a given source language, takinginto account free linear word order, non-tree syntactic phenomena (e.g.,coordination, ellipsis, etc.), referential relationships, and otherconsiderations.

The surface models 810 are represented as aggregates of one or moresyntactic forms (“synfforms” 812) in order to describe possiblesyntactic structures of sentences in a given language. In general, anylexical meaning of a language is linked to their surface (i.e.,syntactic) models 810, which represent constituents which are possiblewhen the lexical meaning functions as a “core” and includes a set ofsurface slots of child elements, a description of the linear order,diatheses, among others.

While the surface models 810 may be represented by synfforms 812, eachsyntform 812 may include a certain lexical meaning which functions as a“core” and may further include a set of surface slots 815 of its childconstituents, a linear order description 816, diatheses 817, grammaticalvalues 814, government and agreement descriptions 840, communicativedescriptions 880, among others, in relationship to the core of theconstituent.

The surface slots descriptions 820 as a part of syntactic descriptions502 are used to describe the general properties of the surface slots 815that are used in the surface models 810 of various lexical meanings inthe source language. The surface slots 815 are used to express syntacticrelationships between the constituents of the sentence. Examples of thesurface slot 815 may include “Subject”, “Object_Direct”,“Object_Indirect”, “Relative Clause”, among others.

As part of a syntactic description, any constituent model uses aplurality of surface slots 815 of child constituents along with theirlinear order descriptions 816 to describe the grammatical values 814 ofpossible fillers of these surface slots 815. The diatheses 817 representcorrespondences between the surface slots 815 and deep slots 914 (asshown in FIG. 9). The diatheses 817 are represented by the link 624between syntactic descriptions 502 and semantic descriptions 504 (asshown in FIG. 6). The communicative descriptions 880 describecommunicative order of the words in a sentence.

Any syntactic form, syntform 812, is a set of surface slots 815 coupledwith the linear order descriptions 816. One or more possibleconstituents for a lexical meaning of a word form of a source sentencemay be represented by surface syntactic models, e.g., the surface models810. Each constituent is viewed as the realization of the constituentmodel by means of selecting a corresponding syntform 812. The selectedsyntactic forms, the syntforms 812, are sets of surface slots 815 with aspecified linear order. Further, each surface slot in a syntform canhave grammatical and semantic restrictions on their fillers.

Linear order description 816 is represented as linear order expressionswhich are built to express a sequence in which various surface slots 815can occur in the sentence. The linear order expressions may includenames of variables, names of surface slots, parenthesis, grammemes,ratings, and the “or” or “and” operators, etc. For example, a linearorder description for the sentence, “Boys play football.” may berepresented as “Subject Core Object_Direct”, where “Subject,Object_Direct” are names of surface slots 815 corresponding to the wordorder. Fillers of the surface slots 815 are present by symbols in thesame order as in the linear order expression.

Different surface slots 815 may be in a strict and/or variablerelationship in the syntform 812. For example, parenthesis may be usedto build the linear order expressions and describe strict linear orderrelationships between different surface slots 815. SurfaceSlot1SurfaceSlot2 or (SurfaceSlot1 SurfaceSlot2) means that both surfaceslots are located in the same linear order expression, but only oneorder of these surface slots relative to each other is possible; namely,SurfaceSlot2 follows after SurfaceSlot1.

As another example, square brackets may be used to describe variablelinear order relationships between different surface slots 815 of thesyntform 812 in the linear order expressions. As such, [SurfaceSlot1SurfaceSlot2] indicates that any linear order of surface slots denotedby the variables SurfaceSlot1 and SurfaceSlot2 is possible.

The linear order expressions of the linear order description 816 maycontain grammatical values 814, expressed by grammemes, to which childconstituents correspond. In addition, two linear order expressions canbe joined by the operator |(<<OR>>). For example: (Subject Core Object)|[Subject Core Object].

Communicative descriptions 880 describe a word order in the syntform 812from the point of view of communicative acts to be represented ascommunicative order expressions, which are similar to linear orderexpressions. The government and agreement description 840 contains rulesand restrictions on grammatical values of attached constituents whichare used during syntactic analysis.

Non-tree syntax descriptions 850 are related to processing variouslinguistic phenomena, such as, ellipsis and coordination, and are usedin syntactic structures transformations which are generated duringvarious steps of analysis according to embodiments of the invention. Thenon-tree syntax description 850 include ellipsis description 852,coordination description 854, as well as, referential and structuralcontrol description 856, among others.

Analysis rules 860, as a part of the syntactic descriptions 502, mayinclude, but are not limited to, semantemes calculating rules 862 andnormalization rules 864. Although analysis rules 860 are used during thestep of semantic analysis 550, the analysis rules 860 generally describeproperties of a specific language and are related to the syntacticdescriptions 502. The normalization rules 864 are generally used astransformational rules to describe transformations of semanticstructures which may be different in various languages.

FIG. 9 illustrates exemplary semantic descriptions. As stated above inreference to FIG. 5, semantic descriptions provide language-independentdescriptions of deep constituents, deep slots, and semantemes, etc. Thecomponents of the semantic descriptions 504 are alsolanguage-independent and may include, but are not limited to, a semantichierarchy 910, deep slots descriptions 920, a system of semantemes 930,and pragmatic descriptions 940.

Semantic hierarchy 910 may include semantic notions or semantic entitiesnamed semantic classes, arranged into hierarchical parent-childrelationships. In general, a child semantic class inherits mostproperties of its direct parent and all ancestral semantic classes. Forexample, semantic class SUBSTANCE is a child of semantic class ENTITYand at the same time it is a parent of semantic classes GAS, LIQUID,METAL, WOOD_MATERIAL, etc.

Each semantic class in the semantic hierarchy 910 is supplied with adeep model 912. The deep model 912 of the semantic class is a set of thedeep slots 914, which reflect the semantic roles of child constituentsin various sentences with objects of the semantic class as the core of aparent constituent and the possible semantic classes as fillers of deepslots. The deep slots 914 express semantic relationships betweenconstituents, including, for example, “agent”, “addressee”,“instrument”, “quantity”, etc. A child semantic class inherits andadjusts the deep model 912 of its direct parent semantic class

Deep slots descriptions 920 are used to describe the properties of thedeep slots 914 and reflect the semantic roles of child constituents inthe deep models 912. The deep slots descriptions 920 also containgrammatical and semantic restrictions on what could be the possiblefillers of the deep slots 914. The properties and restrictions for thedeep slots 914 and their possible fillers are very similar andoftentimes identical among different languages. Thus, the deep slots 914are language-independent.

System of semantemes 930 represents a set of semantic categories andsemantemes, which represent the meanings of the semantic categories. Asan example, a semantic category “DegreeOfComparison”, can be used todescribe the degrees of comparison expressed by various forms ofadjectives, for example, “easy”, “easier” and “easiest”. So, thesemantic category “DegreeOfComparison” may include such semantemes as,for example, “Positive”, “ComparativeHigherDegree”,“SuperlativeHighestDegree”, among others. As another example, a semanticcategory “RelationToReferencePoint” can be used to describe an order asbefore or after a reference point relative to some event or object,etc., and its semantemes may include, “Previous”, “Subsequent”, and theorder may be spatial or temporal in a broad sense. As yet anotherexample, “EvaluationObjective”, as a semantic category, may describe anobjective assessment, such as “Bad”, “Good”, etc.

The systems of semantemes 930 include language-independent semanticattributes which express semantic characteristics as well as stylistic,pragmatic and communicative characteristics. Semantemes can also be usedto express an atomic meaning which finds a regular grammatical and/orlexical expression in a language. By purpose and usage, the system ofsemantemes 930 may be divided into various kinds, including, but notlimited to, grammatical semantemes 932, lexical semantemes 934, andclassifying grammatical (differentiating) semantemes 936.

Grammatical semantemes 932 are used to describe grammatical propertiesof constituents when transforming a syntactic tree (a language dependentobject) into a semantic structure (a language independent object) andbackwards during syntactic structure synthesis 560 from the semanticstructure. Lexical semantemes 934 describe specific properties ofobjects (for example, “being flat” or “being liquid”) and are used inthe deep slot descriptions 920 as restriction for deep slot fillers (forexample, for the verbs “face (with)” and “flood”, respectively).Classifying grammatical (differentiating) semantemes 936 expressdifferentiating properties of objects within a single semantic class.For example, in the semantic class “HAIRDRESSER” the semanteme<<RelatedToMen>> is assigned to the lexical meaning “barber”, unlikeother lexical meanings which also belong to this class, such as“hairdresser”, “hairstylist”, etc.

Pragmatic descriptions 940 are used to assign a corresponding theme,style or genre to texts and objects of the semantic hierarchy 910. Forexample, “Economic Policy”, “Foreign Policy”, “Justice”, “Legislation”,“Trade”, “Finance”, etc. Pragmatic properties can also be expressed bysemantemes. For example, pragmatic context may be considered whengenerating natural language sentences.

FIG. 10 illustrates exemplary lexical descriptions. The lexicaldescriptions 503 represent a plurality of lexical meanings 1012 in aspecific language. For each lexical meaning 1012, a link 1002 to itslanguage-independent semantic parent may be established to indicate thelocation of a given lexical meaning in the semantic hierarchy 910.

Each lexical meaning 1012 is connected with its deep model 912, which isdescribed in language-independent terms, and surface model 810, which islanguage-specific. Diatheses can be used as the interface between thesurface models 810 and the deep models 912 for each lexical meaning 1012or for a part of speech with some specific grammatical value. One ormore diatheses 817 can be assigned to each surface slot 815 in eachsyntform 812 of the surface models 810.

While the surface model 810 describes the syntactic roles of surfaceslots and their fillers, the deep model 912 generally describes thesemantic roles of the surface slots and the fillers. A deep slotdescription 920 expresses the semantic types of possible fillers and/orthe properties or attributes of the objects denoted by the words of anynatural language.

Deep slot descriptions 920 are language-independent since differentlanguages may use the same deep slot to describe similar semanticrelationships or to express similar aspects of a real-life situation.Typically, the fillers of the deep slots 914 have the same semanticproperties even in different languages. Lexical meanings 1012 of alexical description of a language inherit properties of semantic classfrom its parent and adjust its deep model 912.

In addition, lexical meanings 1012 may contain their own characteristicsas well as inherit other characteristics from language-independentparent semantic class. These characteristics of the lexical meanings1012 may include grammatical values 1008 and semantic value 1010, whichcan be expressed as grammemes and semantemes, respectively.

Each surface model 810 of a lexical meaning includes one or moresyntforms 812. Every syntform 812 of a surface model 810 may include oneor more surface slots 815 with their linear order description 816, oneor more grammatical values 814 expressed as a set of grammaticalcharacteristics (grammemes), one or more semantic restrictions onsurface slot fillers, and one or more of the diatheses 817. Semanticrestrictions on a surface slot filler are a set of semantic classes,whose objects can fill a given surface slot. The diatheses 817 are apart of relationship 624 between syntactic descriptions 502 and semanticdescriptions 504, and represent correspondences between the surfaceslots 815 and the deep slots 914 of the deep model 912.

The use of such an extensive set of linguistic descriptions allows thesystem to completely parse sentences in any source language and build alanguage-independent semantic structure which encodes its meaning inlanguage-independent terms. The idea behind the method is to use thedata obtained by previous analyses. Usually, only an experienced humantranslator can evaluate the correctness of a translation obtained withan MT system. This method automates this process.

If the syntactico-semantic parsing of two counterpart sentences, one inthe source language and the other in the target language, produces treeswhich are judged to be identical or near-identical, the translation maybe deemed correct. Next, such parsed counterparts are filtered and thosetree pairs are selected. Then they may be used to make judgments aboutthe frequency of occurrence of certain elements of the surface and deepstructures. Returning to FIG. 4, all the described below actions forgathering statistics and making generalizations based on the obtaineddata refer to the stages 410 and 420.

Types of Statistics Used

The stage 410 consists in parsing tagged and parallel texts. As thesyntactic descriptions are constantly improved, the statistics have tobe periodically updated by parsing the texts anew. The simplest types ofstatistics are the calculation of the number of occurrences of aparticular word (lexical meaning) and the calculation of the number ofoccurrences of a particular deep slot. These statistics are used tocompute penalty and bonus points for the lexical choices at the analysisand synthesis stages. Other things being equal, preference is given tothe more frequent lexical meaning.

The frequency of a lexeme or a lexical meaning may be computedseparately for a selected domain (subject matter), e.g. for texts onlaw, IT, agriculture, etc. Conversely, if the system has amassed thistype of statistics, it can attempt to determine which domain a textbelongs to. Several domains for one and the same text may be indicated.Text domain may also be taken into account when making lexical choices.For example, both in Russian and in German the lexemes “3aMOK” (Rus.)and “Schoβ” (Ger.) have symmetrical homonyms: 1) castle, 2) lock. It mayby assumed sense the meaning “castle” is the more probable one in textsbelonging to the domains of history, tourism, travel guides,architecture, etc. Likewise, the lexeme “rock” used in texts aboutmusic, culture, adolescents, society is more likely to mean “rock music”rather than “the solid mineral material forming part of the surface ofthe earth and other similar planets.” Another example: in texts onaviation and weapons of war, the lexeme “drone” is much more likely tomean “pilotless plane” than “insect, male bee.”

More complex types of statistics may be used. For example, deeplanguage-independent statistics of “semantic class—semantic class”correspondences may be used. If two semantic classes frequentlyco-occur, lexemes from these classes are very likely to combinetogether. Consequently, at the stage of lexical analysis, a pair of thistype will receive bonus points, and this pair will be selected fromamong other possible options. For example, the lexeme “hammer” belongsto the semantic class “HAMMER” and the lexeme “heavy” belongs to thesemantic class “WEIGHT” with the semanteme PolarityPlus. If a sentencesin a source language, e.g. in English, contains the word combination“heavy hammer” and when analyzing the corresponding sentence in a targetlanguage, e.g. in Russian, the system obtains the same “HAMMER—WEIGHT”pair of semantic classes, this pair may be marked as highly probable. Onthe other hand, if the pair of semantic classes “HAMMER—WEIGHT” isregarded as highly probable, then during translating a real sentencesany other words from the class “HAMMER”, not only in English, maybe,highly probable compatible with words from the class “WEIGHT”. Forexample, “sledgehammer” may be highly probable compatible with“ponderous”, “massive”, etc.

Another, more sophisticated, type of statistics, is the calculation oftriplets of type “semantic class (the lexical core of the parentconstituent)—semantic class (the lexical core of the childconstituent)—deep slot.” The statistics are gathered in the same manneras above, but additionally takes in account the “deep slot” relationwhich binds semantic classes. Thus, for “heavy hammer,” the system willdeem the combination of the semantic classes “HAMMER—WEIGHT” with thedeep slot “ChParameter_Weight” to be highly probable.

Statistics Gathering Methods

Some of the more sophisticated types of statistics cannot be alwaysobtained experimentally, like, for example, the above calculation oftriplets of type “semantic class (the lexical core of the parentconstituent>)—semantic class (the lexical core of the childconstituent>)—deep slot.” The generalizations and calculation ofstatistical ratings are done at the stage 420. The idea behind themethod is that not all triplets are equally probable. To resolveambiguities, the system must be capable of evaluating the probability ofeach triplet {A=Parent,B=Child,S=Slot}. Below this probability will bewritten as P(A,B,S).

Naturally, the total number of all theoretically possible triplets{A,B,S} is impossibly huge and it would be unrealistic to expect that wecan obtain a reliable corpus of grammatically tagged parallel textslarge enough to evaluate the probability of each possible triplet.

For this reason, we must limit ourselves either to the “very frequent”triplets, or be able to compute approximate probabilities using themethod of extrapolation. Below we suggest a possible extrapolationmethod which consists in calculating complex bonus points as a sum ofsimple bonus points. Due to the probabilistic nature of P(A,B,S), it canbe expanded as a product of more or less “independent” quantities whichmay be evaluated separately and, if required, on different sample set.In practice, instead of evaluating the quantity itself, its logarithmmay be evaluated (a small radix of, say, 1.001 is used, which is thenrounded down). This allows adding the bonus points rather thanmultiplying them.

The quantity P(A,B,S) can be represented as the product P(A)P(B)P(S)

$\frac{P\left( {A\bigcap B\bigcap S} \right)}{{P(A)}{P(B)}{P(S)}}.$

The probabilities P(A) and P(B), which are the absolute frequencies ofthe classes, may be evaluated separately, taking into account thepragmatic classes 940 (domain) of the analyzed text fragment. We assumethat the other probabilities are almost independent of the pragmaticclass, and therefore, they are evaluated using the general sample whichincludes texts belonging to all domains.

The combinability of the class A with the deep slot S is the quantity

$\frac{P\left( {A\bigcap S} \right)}{{P(A)}{P(S)}},$

which, in most cases, can be evaluated as the quotient of thecorresponding numbers of occurrences. Sometimes, if there is not enoughdata, a generalization based on the semantic hierarchy may be made (seebelow).

The probability of the deep slot P(S) is evaluated as the quotientN(S)/N (the number of occurrences of the deep slot divided by the totalnumber of tree links). If we continue to expand P(A,B,S), we get anintuitively clear representation of P(A,B,S) as a product of “absolutefrequency of A”×“absolute frequency of B”×“absolute frequency ofS”×“combinability of the class A with the deep slot S”×“combinability ofthe class B with the deep slot S”×“combinability of the classes A and Bif the deep slot is S” (the corresponding mathematical calculations arefairly trivial).

The combinability of the classes A and B if the deep slot is S is

$\frac{P\left( {{A\bigcap B}S} \right)}{{P\left( {AS} \right)}{P\left( {BS} \right)}}.$

This quantity presents the most difficulty, as very often there is notenough statistics to make a reliable evaluation. Below we describe a“generalization” that uses the semantic hierarchy 910 which partly helpssolve the problem.

It may be assumed that two classes which are located “close” to eachother in the semantic hierarchy 910 have close ratings for“combinability” with other classes and deep slots. For example, if“hammer,” “crowbar,” “sledgehammer,” and other similar tools are often“heavy,” it is very probable that any other tool (including those notencountered in the samples) are often qualified as “heavy.” Thisassumption allows the system to evaluate the combinability of a classfor which not enough statistics is available via the combinability ofits parent.

To evaluate the combinability of a semantic class with a deep slot

$\frac{P\left( {A\bigcap S} \right)}{{P(A)}{P(S)}}$

when there is not enough statistics, a “simple generalization” is made:the class A′ is replaced with its immediate parent in the semantichierarchy:

$\frac{P\left( {A^{\prime}\bigcap S} \right)}{{P\left( A^{\prime} \right)}{P(S)}}.$

The nature of the semantic hierarchy and of the quantity to be computedleads us to believe that calculating errors are negligible.

Next, we evaluate the combinability of the classes A and B if the deepslot is

$\frac{P\left( {{A\bigcap B}S} \right)}{{P\left( {AS} \right)}{P\left( {BS} \right)}}.$

For the sake of simplicity, we ignore the division of the tree linksaccording to the various deep slots. Everywhere below in this section weassume that there is only one generalized deep slot S (e.g. a“noun+adjective” combination) and use this slot in our calculations.

To evaluate the combinability of the classes A and B

$\frac{P\left( {A\bigcap B} \right)}{{P(A)}{P(B)}},$

we could use a “simple generalization” based on one of the classes (e.g.by replacing the class A with its immediate parent, class A′). However,this approach would be asymmetrical as regards the classes A and B.Additionally, all information about the class A would be lost, which maybe essential. Therefore, we use a less trivial “partial generalization”approach, which is free of the above drawbacks.

It is easy to see that the “combinability” (logarithm of

$\frac{P\left( {A\bigcap B} \right)}{{P(A)}{P(B)}}$

)is zero for independent classes, is positive for classes thatfrequently combine, and is negative for classes that usually do notcombine. The idea behind the “partial generalization” approach is toexpand the combinability of the two classes as a sum of smallercombinabilities, each of which may be evaluated independently, and thensubstitute with zeros those compatibilities which cannot be evaluateddue to lack of data.

Let the considered objects and their corresponding classes be arrangedas follows in the semantic hierarchy 910: “HAMMER”->“TOOL”->“OBJECT” and“HEAVY”->“possessing a certain physical property” (each subsequentnotion is more general than its predecessor). Suppose we need toevaluate the combinability of “hammer” with the adjective “heavy.” Theidea is that since we have a semantic hierarchy, we may first considerthe “smaller” combinability of “hammer” and “heavy” under an additionalconstraint: evaluate the combinability only of instruments having acertain physical property rather than the combinability of all objects.This “smaller” combinability is more local, i.e. it does not take intoaccount any words or notions outside the classes “TOOL” or “having acertain physical property” and is independent of them.

The “complete” combinability of the classes A and B can be written as

$\log \frac{P\left( {A\bigcap B} \right)}{{P(A)}{P(B)}}$

and approximately equals

${\log \frac{N\left( {A\bigcap B} \right)N}{{N(A)}{N(B)}}},$

where N is the total number of samples. The “smaller” combinability canbe written as

$\log \frac{P\left( {{{A\bigcap B}A^{\prime}},B^{\prime}} \right)}{{P\left( {{AA^{\prime}},B^{\prime}} \right)}{P\left( {{BA^{\prime}},B^{\prime}} \right)}}$

and approximately equals

${\log \frac{N\left( {A\bigcap B} \right){N\left( {A^{\prime}\bigcap B^{\prime}} \right)}}{{N\left( {A\bigcap B^{\prime}} \right)}{N\left( {A^{\prime}\bigcap B} \right)}}},$

where A′ and B′ are the immediate parents of A and B in the semantichierarchy. The “complete” combinability of the classes A and B equalsthe sum of all “smaller” combinabilities of A_(i) and B_(i) for all thepairs i and j (where A₁, A₂, A₃, . . . are the parents of A in thesemantic hierarchy, and B₁, B₂, B₃, . . . are the parents of B).

This approach allows the system to arrive at an approximate evaluationof a “combinability” in the absence of sufficient statistics.

Gathering the Statistics

At the stage 420, the statistics are gathered as follows: all the treelinks identified in a text corpus with the tagged deep structures aregathered in one array (identical links are grouped together). The arrayis saved to a file, which can later be used in compiling the statistics.

The main problem lies in obtaining a corpus of correctly tagged texts.As it seems impossible to manually tag a sufficient number of texts tomake the statistics reliable, texts are tagged automatically. Tagging isdone by the NLC analyzer and is, in fact, the saved results of thesyntactic and, in part, semantic analysis operations. All the possibleparsing options may be retained, to prevent systematic parsing errorsfrom translating into a similarly systematic error in the statistics.Later on, when the system already has amassed some trained statistics,these statistics may be used to discard unlikely parsing options whengathering new statistics.

Another possible source of correctly tagged texts is a corpus ofparallel texts. Supposedly, parallel texts may help resolve a largeportion of lexical (and, possible, grammatical) homonymy. However, asignificant portion of homonyms will remain unresolved, as in somelanguage pairs, e.g. in English and in Russian, similar homonymy occurs.For example, the list of the senses of “soft” is close to the list ofthe senses of “

” (Rus.) and the list of the senses of “

” (Rus.) is close to the list of the senses if “heavy.”

Finally, to fine-tune the statistics, manual tagging may be used. When asystematic error is encountered (e.g. a wrong sense for the word “heavy”is selected), the system presents the operator with a list of all thecontexts where this word occurs so that the operator may tag the correctsenses. For this purpose, the system includes a command which allows theoperator, for example, to “tag all instances of “heavy” with lexicalmeanings from the class “ARTEFACT” as “heavy: WEIGHT”.”

The processing of the tree links at the stage 420 consists ingeneralizing the gathered statistics, computing the “combinabilities” ofvarious generalized classes in the hierarchy. A decision is made as towhich of the “combinabilities” are sufficiently different than zero tobe stored in memory. It is useful to store only those values for a classin the hierarchy which are significantly different from thecorresponding values for its parent. This saves memory resources andincreases accuracy, as the combinability values for parents aretypically more accurate, having been computed using a greater amount ofdata. The result is a file containing data which allow the system toevaluate the probability of a tree link, enabling it to select the moreprobable option if an ambiguity occurs.

Using Domain Statistics

Besides the use of the tree links as described above, another majormethod of resolving lexical ambiguities at the analysis and synthesisstages is the use of data about the domain to which the text or part ofthe text belongs (the pragmatic descriptions 940). For example, thesystem must be aware that in the “Cryptography” domain the word “key”usually means “the code for deciphering encrypted data” rather thananything else. Likewise, at the synthesis stage, the system must beaware that in the “Maritime Transport” domain, the word “kitchen” isnever used and “caboose” or “galley” are used instead, even thoughsemantically they are synonymous and the word “kitchen” is much morefrequent in lay texts.

To take into account this type of statistics, algorithms may be usedsimilar to those employed for gathering tree-link statistics. Instead ofcomputing “the combinability of a certain semantic class with a certainother semantic class,” the system must compute “the combinability of acertain semantic class with a certain domain (pragmatic class).” Aseparate task is the creation of a corpus of texts or text fragmentssupplied with pragmatic tags. Manual tagging will most likely produceonly a “rough” tagging of classes. More accurate tagging can be achievedautomatically, by using predefined marker terms (e.g. the term “restmass” only occurs in texts related to elementary partide physics).Iterative automated tagging is also possible, when previously taggedtexts are used to gather statistics which, in turn, is used to tagfurther texts, but this approach may result in the snowballing ofsystematic errors, unless the tagging is verified manually.

Adjusting Statistics Based on a User-Provided Text Corpus

A user of an MT application may amass translations done manually ortranslations done by an MT system but post-edited by a human translator.Besides, a translator may have many parallel and non-parallel textsbelonging to the domains in which he or she specializes. All these textsmay be put to good use for MT.

If the user has amassed a sufficiently large amount of texts, they maybe used for the full-fledged statistics training as described above.This requires labor-intensive control by the user and regular visualchecking on test examples, which is often unrealistic to expect.However, we can limit the use of user-statistics to correcting onlysystematic errors of the MT application, correcting only systematictranslation errors for specific words and word combinations.

For example, a user may have amassed a database of terms which containsmultiple rules of the following type: “the word or word combination Xwhen used in a text belonging to domain Y (or to any domain) must alwaysbe translated as Z.” For example, “to crack a password” should always betranslated into Russian as “

” (=break-in), or “jet” in texts on aviation must always be translatedinto Russian as “

” (=jet-propelled). These rules may be simple formulas and may bedisplayed to the user as a list which the user may edit. e.g. by settingrule priorities, adding new rules, and change the constraints on thedomain where the rule applies.

If this approach is used, user-provided material can be used forautomated detection of systematic errors (based on the parallel texts)and automated generation of rules of the above type (which the user mayedit if required).

First, the corpus of parallel texts is analyzed and all errors aredetected (i.e. instances where our system translates differently fromthe model provided by the parallel texts).

The obtained list of errors is then filtered. First of all, only thoseerrors are retained for which the system has found clear correspondencesin the fragments of the two tree structures, one in the original and theother in the model translation. Secondly, those errors are discardedwhich occur less than a certain predefined threshold N. Other filteringcriteria are possible.

For each systematic error, a rule must be created which is a goodgeneralization of the error. Unfortunately, this requires a lot ofintellectual skill, as a systematic error in the translation of, say,the word “jet” may be caused by different factors. The followingscenario may be used:

If a systematic error in translating the word “jet” may be corrected byadding a domain rule (‘the adjective “jet” in texts on aviation shouldalways be translated into Russian as “

”’), then the appropriate rule is created. The domain should always beas wide as possible unless this generalization starts corruptingpreviously correct translations (i.e. the ideal rule would be ‘theadjective “jet” in texts on any subject should always be translated intoRussian as “

”’).

If a systematic error cannot be corrected in this manner, an attemptshould be made to correct it by adding one or more terminological oridentifying phrases, e.g. “jet plane” in the case of “jet.” Hereambiguities are possible, as in “a jet plane flies” ambiguity in thecase of “plane” (“airplane” vs “flat surface”) can be resolved by usingeither the terminological combination “jet plane” or the identifyingword combination “plane flies.” The best option, perhaps, is to selectthe more frequent word combination and the one which does not corruptthe previously correct translations.

The training based on user-provided texts must support subsequentadditional training as the users text corpus grows. New texts added bythe user may lead to a complete change of rules. For example, adding anew set of texts may reveal the fact that the adjective “jet,” when usedin texts on aviation, may have not one but two correct translations,depending on the noun which it qualifies. For this reason, in the courseof additional training based on user-provided texts, all rules must beoverhauled. However, as the rules are available for manual editing bythe user and as the system may contain rules manually added by the user(for example, if the user is a professional translator who added to thesystem his/her preferred dictionaries in the form of rules), the oldrules should not be removed completely. When additional training isperformed, the system marks the rules which contradict the current usertext corpus (i.e. “jet” is translated incorrectly) and prompts the userto remove these rules. Separately, a list of new suggested rules isgenerated.

Using Non-Parallel User-Provided Texts

If the user's corpus of parallel texts is not sufficiently large(perhaps, only translation bureaus are likely to own large corpora ofparallel texts), monolingual texts on a given subject may also be used(usually a translator start familiarizing himself/herself with aparticular subject by amassing monolingual texts on this subject).Obviously, this type of data is less complete and precise compared tobilingual corpora, but it may prove useful nonetheless.

Similarly to the use of parallel texts provided by the user, an attemptshould be made to correct systematic errors made by the application. Inthe absence of a parallel text, wrong lexical choices made at theanalysis stage cannot be identified (i.e. it is impossible to identifywhich word senses have been selected incorrectly in the case ofhomonyms). However, synthesis errors can be identified and corrected(i.e. the user may correct the wrong choices made by the system whendeciding which word best translates the given notion in the givencontext). For example, if there are multiple occurrences of “grievousbodily harm” in the texts and no occurrences of “grievous injury,” it isprobably the former word combination that should be selected whentranslating texts in this domain. On the whole, the scenario of usingmonolingual texts provided by the user may be approximately the same asthat of using parallel texts.

First, all systematic errors made by the application are detected. Toachieve this, each monolingual text is parsed by the analyzer andsynthesized again in the same language. If the synthesized result doesnot coincide with the original text (e.g. if “grievous bodily harm” hasbecome “grievous injury”), the corresponding errors are registered.Next, systematic errors are selected from the overall list of errors.

Next, for each systematic error, a heuristic method is used to create acorrecting rule. The rules may be defined as “accepted terms” and looklike this: “in texts on elementary particle physics, the word ‘mass’ isto be preferred to the word ‘weight’” or “in texts on any subject,‘grievous bodily harm’ is to be preferred to ‘grievous bodily injury’.”

Lexical Analysis and Lexical-Morphological Analysis

Referring back to FIG. 5, we will describe in detail the stages of theNLC method, noting the ones where statistical and other ratings arepossible and useful. The lexical analysis 510 is performed on the sourcesentence 512 represented in a source/input language, which may be anynatural language. In one embodiment, all the necessary languagedescriptions for the source sentence 512 are created. The sourcesentence 512 may be divided into a number of lexemes, elements, orunits, including all the words, word forms, gaps, spaces, andpunctuators, etc. present in the source sentence for building a lexicalstructure of the sentence. A lexeme is a meaningful linguistic unit thatis an item in the vocabulary, such as the lexical-semantic dictionary1004 of a language.

As shown in FIG. 5B, the lexical-morphological analysis 520 is performedon the source sentence 512. During the lexical-morphological analysis520 each element of the source sentence 512 are searched in order tofind one or more word forms, which is not a space or a punctuator,assign one or more pairs of “lexical meaning-grammatical value”corresponding to each word form, and generate a lexical-morphologicalstructure for the source sentence 512. The lexical-morphologicalstructure of a sentence contains a complete set of pairs of “lexicalmeaning-grammatical value” for each unit of the lexical structure whichis not a space or a punctuator.

The morphological descriptions 501 for the source language (e.g., theword-inflexion description 710 and the word-formation description 730,etc.) are used to provide a set of lexemes for each word form. Eachlexeme may correspond to one or more (usually multiple) word forms, oneor more corresponding lexical meanings 1012 and grammatical values 1008obtained from the lexical description 503, and their correspondinggrammatical values 1008 obtained from the morphological descriptions501. The grammatical values 1008 are represented as a set of values ofgrammatical attributes (expressed in grammemes) of a word form. Examplesof these grammatical attributes include, but are not limited to, thepart of speech, number, gender, case, etc. A complete set of pairs of“lexical meaning-grammatical value” is generated for each word form inthe source sentence 512 and used to build the lexical-morphologicstructure for the source sentence 512.

FIG. 11 illustrates an example of the lexical-morphological structurefor the sentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” accordingto one embodiment of the invention. The lexical-morphological structurehas a complete set of pairs of “lexical meaning-grammatical value” foreach unit of this sentence. For example, “II” may mean “shall” 1122 and“will” 1124 as its lexical meanings 1012. For the lexical meaning of“shall” 1122, the grammatical values 1008 is <Verb, GTVerbModal,ZeroType, Present, Nonnegative, Composite_II>, as shown in FIG. 11. Asanother example, the grammatical value 1008 for the lexical meaning“will” 1124 is <Verb, GTVerbModal, ZeroType, Present, Nonnegative,Irregular, Composite_II>.

During the initial stage of the lexical-morphological analysis 520,lemmatization (searching and assigning lexemes) and obtaining pairs oflexical meaning-grammatical value are concurrently made. The lexeme ofthe word form, its lemma, and morphological grammatical values for allelements for the source sentence 512 are searched and found by using thelexical descriptions 503. If there may be various grammatical values1008 for a word form found for a single category, thelexical-morphological structure may include all the possible grammaticalvalues 1008 connected by “or”.

For example, six pairs of “lexical meaning-grammatical value” are foundfor the word form “smart”, as shown in FIG. 11. As a result, the wordform “smart” may have the same lexical meaning of “smart” but six (6)different grammatical values 1008. Depending on its presence indifferent parts of speech, the word form “smart” may be Adjective, Verb,Adverb, Noun, etc, and there may be three different grammatical valuesfor Verb as the value of the “Part of speech” category, as shown in FIG.9. As another example, the word form “life” may have two lexicalmeaning-grammatical value pairs generated having the lexical meaning1132 of “life” paired with the grammatical value of <Adjective,DegreePositive, GTAdjectiveAttr> and lexical meaning 1134 of “life”paired with <Noun, Nominative I Accusative, GTNoun, Singular>.

In addition, different lexical meanings may correspond to the samelexeme, for example, the lexeme “smart” as an adjective has thefollowing lexical meanings with different semantics (as given, forexample, in the Oxford Thesaurus), including 1) “well dressed, wellturned out, fashionably dressed, etc.”; 2) “fashionable, stylish,high-class, exclusive, chic, fancy, etc.”; 3) “clever, bright,intelligent, sharp, sharp-witted, quick-witted, efc.”, among others.These different lexical meanings may have different language-independentsemantic parents, proper deep models, and proper surface models. Duringthe lexical analysis stage, all these lexical meanings are generalized,but the whole list of these lexical meanings is stored/saved in order touse their surface and deep models for further analysis.

Since every lexical meaning in any given language goes back to theparent semantic class and inherits some its characteristics, acorresponding lexical description 503 with its surface model 810 anddeep model 912 can be found in the lexical-semantic dictionary 1004. Allthe lexical descriptions 503 and the morphological descriptions 501related to all the lexical meanings 1012 of all word forms of the sourcesentence 512 are used in the lexical-morphological analysis 520. Once acomplete set of pairs of “lexical meaning-grammatical value” for thesource sentence 512 are made, merging of the grammatical values 1008 areperformed.

Once the lexical-morphological structure is constructed and generalizedgrammatical values, if generalization/merging is possible, are providedfor each word form, a syntactic analysis is performed. The syntacticanalysis may be performed in two steps, the rough syntactic analysis 530and the precise syntactic analysis 540, which are performed bottom-upand top-down, respectively.

Rough Syntactic Analysis

During the rough syntactic analysis, as shown on FIG. 12, a graph 1202of generalized constituents is build from the lexical-morphologicalstructure 1201 of the source sentence 512. All the possible surfacesyntactic models for each element of lexical-morphological structure1201 are applied, and all the possible constituents are built andgeneralized. A rough syntactic analyzer or its equivalents is adapted togenerate the graph 1202 of the generalized constituents from thelexical-morphological structure 1201 using the surface models 810, thedeep models 912, and the lexical-semantic dictionary 1004.

In one embodiment, all the possible syntactic descriptions and syntacticstructures for the source sentence 512 are considered and generalized.As a result, the graph 1202 of the generalized constituents is built,having each constituent generalized from all the possible constituentsfor each element of the source sentence 512, and building generalizedconstituents are performed for all the elements of the source sentence512. The graph 1202 of generalized constituents reflects, on a surfacemodel level, all hypothetical possible syntactic relationships betweenthe words of the source sentence 512.

To build all possible constituents, every element of the source sentence512 which is not a space or a punctuator is viewed as a potential coreof a constituent. The building of the graph 1202 of generalizedconstituents starts with building those constituents which have only thecore word form and further expands to build constituents of the nextlevel by including neighboring constituents. For each pair of “lexicalmeaning-grammatical value” which corresponds to a non-trivial arc oflexical-morphological structure, its surface model 810 is initialized,attempting to attach other constituents in the surface slots 815 of thesyntforms 812 of its surface model 810 to the right and the leftneighboring constituents. If an appropriate syntform 812 is found in thesurface model 810 of the corresponding lexical meaning, the selectedlexical meaning may be the core of a new constituent.

The building of the graph 1202 of generalized constituents starts withbuilding those constituents which have only the core word form andfurther expands to build constituents of the next level by includingneighboring constituents. For each pair of “lexical meaning-grammaticalvalue” which corresponds to a non-trivial arc of lexical-morphologicalstructure, its surface model 810 is initialized, attempting to attachother constituents in the surface slots 815 of the synfforms 812 of itssurface model 810 to the right and the left neighboring constituents. Ifan appropriate syntform 812 is found in the surface model 810 of thecorresponding lexical meaning, the selected lexical meaning may be thecore of a new constituent.

The graph 1202 of generalized constituents is first built as a tree,from the leaves to the root (bottom up). Building of additionalconstituents is performed bottom-up by attaching child constituents toparent constituents via filling the surface slots 815 of parentconstituents to cover all the initial lexical units of the sourcesentence 512.

The root of the tree is the main clause, represented by a specialconstituent corresponding to various types of maximal units of a textanalysis (complete sentences, enumerations, titles, etc.). The core ofthe main clause is generally a predicate. During this process, the treeactually becomes a graph, because lower-level constituents (the leaves)can be included into different upper-level constituents (the root).

Some of the constituents which are built for the same element of thelexical-morphological structure may be generalized to obtain generalizedconstituents. Constituents are generalized by the lexical meanings 1012,by the grammatical values 814, for example, by parts of speech, by theirboundaries, among others. Constituents are generalized by theboundaries, since there may be very different syntactic relationships inthe sentence, and the same word may be included in differentconstituents. As a result of the rough syntactic analysis 530, the graph1202 of generalized constituents is built which represents the wholesentence.

FIG. 12 illustrates in further detail the rough syntactic analysis 530according to one or more embodiments of the invention. The roughsyntactic analysis 530 generally includes preliminary assembly 1210 ofthe constituents, building 1220 of generalized constituents, filtering1270, building 1230 of generalized constituent models, building 1240 agraph of generalized constituents, coordination processing 1250, andrestoring ellipsis 1260, among others.

The preliminary assembly 1210 of the constituents during the roughsyntactic analysis 530 is performed on the lexical-morphologicalstructure 1201 of the sentence to be analyzed, including certain wordgroups, the words in brackets, inverted commas, etc. Only one word inthe group (the constituent core) can attach or be attached toconstituents outside the group. The preliminary assembly 1210 isperformed early during the rough syntactic analysis 530 before building1220 of generalized constituents and building 1230 of the generalizedconstituent models to cover all the boundaries of the whole sentence.

Building 1220 of generalized constituents generally require that allpossible pairs of the lexical meaning 1012 and the grammatical value 814are found or assigned for each of the constituents and attach thesurface slots of the child constituents thereof to each of theconstituents. Lexical units of the source sentence 512 can form intocore constituents at bottom levels. Each constituent can be attached toa constituent at a higher level if the surface slots 815 of theconstituent at the higher level can be filled. Thus, the constituentsare further expanded to include the neighboring constituents built atprevious constituent building process until all of the possibleconstituents have been built to cover the entire sentence.

During rough syntactic analysis 530, the number of the differentconstituents which may be built and the syntactic relationships amongthem are considerably large, some of the surface models 810 of theconstituents are chosen to be filtered through the process of filtering1270 prior to and after the building the constituents in order togreatly reduce the number of the different constituents to beconsidered. Thus, at the early stage of the rough syntactic analysis530, the most suitable surface models and syntforms are selected on thebasis of a priori and statistical rating. Such a priori and statisticalrough ratings include ratings of lexical meanings, ratings of fillers,ratings of the correspondence to semantic descriptions, among others.

The filtering 1270 during the rough syntactic analysis 530 includefiltering of a set of syntforms 812 performed prior to and during thebuilding 1220 of generalized constituents. The syntforms 812 and thesurface slots 815 are filtered a priori, and constituents are filteredafter they are built. The process of the filtering 1270 distills out anumber of syntforms including, but not limited to, those syntforms thatdo not correspond to the grammatical values of the constituent, thosesyntforms where none of the core slots can be filled, those syntformswith special slots which describe grammatical movement, among others. Aspecial slot, such as relativization and question, presupposing aspecial lexeme (relative or interrogative pronoun), is filtered out ifthe special lexeme is not present in the sentence.

In general, the syntax forms (syntforms 812) which do not have fillersfor at least one surface slot can be filtered and discarded. Inaddition, those lexical meanings 1012 which do not have syntforms 812with filled surface slots 815 are filtered and discarded. The roughsyntactic analysis 530 is impossible to succeed if there is no syntformand no filled surface slot, and as such the filtering 1270 is performed.

Once all possible constituents are built, the generalization procedureis performed for building 1220 of the generalized constituents. Allpossible homonyms and all possible meanings for elements of the sourcesentence which are capable of being present in the same part of a speechare condensed and generalized, and all possible constituents built inthis fashion are condensed into generalized constituents 1222.

A generalized constituent 1222 describes all the constituents with allthe possible boundaries in a given source sentence which have a wordform as the core constituent and various lexical meanings of this wordform. Since the constituents are generalized, a single constituent foreach lexical meaning corresponding to each entity of a sentence,including homonyms, is built, and their syntactic forms may be analyzedsimultaneously.

The building 1230 of generalized constituent models is performed and aset of models 1232 of generalized constituents having generalized modelsof all generalized lexemes are built. A generalized constituent model ofa lexeme contains a generalized deep model and a generalized surfacemodel. A generalized deep model of a lexeme includes the list of all ofthe deep slots which have the same lexical meaning for a lexeme,together with the descriptions of all the requirements for the fillersof the deep slots. A generalized surface model contains informationabout the syntforms 812, where the lexeme may occur, about the surfaceslots 815, about the diatheses 817 correspondences between surface slots815 and deep slots 914, and about the linear order description 816.

The syntforms 812 and the surface slots 815 that are significant forthis lexeme are selected with the help of the bit-mask. In addition,models of the generalized constituents are built because a constituentis generalized not only by lexical meanings and syntactic forms of itscore, but also by the fragments it fills. The use of the models of thegeneralized constituents reduces the number of wrong relationships andhelps to optimize the process to extract a syntactic tree so that allpossible boundaries are considered.

The generalized diatheses are built during the rough syntactic analysis530 as the correspondences between generalized surface models andgeneralized deep models. The list of all possible semantic classes forall the diatheses 817 of the lexeme is computed for each surface slot815.

As shown in FIG. 12, information from the syntforms 812 of the syntacticdescriptions 502 as well as the semantic descriptions 504 are used tobuild the models 1232 of the generalized constituents. For example,dependent constituents are attached to each lexical meaning of asentence unit and the rough syntactic analysis 530 may also need todetermine whether a “candidate” constituent as a dependent constituentcan be a filler of the corresponding deep slot of the deep model 912 fora core constituent. Such compatibility analysis allows the wrongsyntactic relationships to be discarded early.

The building 1240 of the graph of the generalized constituents isperformed. The graph 1202 of generalized constituents which describesall possible syntactic structures of the entire sentence is built bylinking and assembling the generalized constituents 1222 to each other.The building 1240 of the graph of the generalized constituents isorganized via generating and processing of the queue of requests toattach one constituent to another constituent. In general, contact pairsof constituents representing contact groups of words in the sentence canbe included in the request queue.

A constituent can be attached to different surface slots of anotherconstituent and a child constituent can be attached to different parentconstituents. In each case, a request for attachment of one constituentto another constituent can be generated. The requests can be processedby a subsystem, such as a dispatcher 1290. If attachment to the selectedsurface slot is performed or found impossible, the request is removedfrom the queue of active request of the dispatcher 1290.

The dispatcher 1290 or any devices, systems, computer-readable media,adapted to perform the building 1240 of the graph of the generalizedconstituents can wait and search for new constituent pairs in order toput these constituent pairs into the dispatcher queue, such as bykeeping the right and left directions of the neighboring constituents ofa constituent. For example, during attaching a child constituent to theparent constituents, the left constituent pair of the child constituentis added to the left of the parent constituent and the right constituentpair of the child constituent is added to the right of the parentconstituent.

As shown in FIG. 12, the coordination processing 1250 is also performedon the graph 1202 of the generalized constituents. Coordination is alanguage phenomenon which is presented in sentences with enumerationand/or a coordinating conjunction, such as “and”, “or”, “but”, etc. Asimple example of a sentence with coordination—“John, Mary and Bill camehome.” In this case only one of coordinated child constituent isattached in the surface slot of a parent constituent during building1240 the graph of the generalized constituents. If a constituent, whichmay be a parent constituent, has a surface slot filled for a coordinatedconstituent, all coordinated constituents are taken and an attempt ismade to attach all these child constituents to the parent constituent,even if there is no contact or attachment between the coordinatedconstituents. During coordination processing 1250, the linear order andmultiple filling possibility of the surface slot are determined. If theattachment is possible, a proform which refers to the common childconstituent is created and attached. As shown in FIG. 12, thecoordination processor 1282 or other algorithms, devices, and computersubsystems can be adapted to perform the coordination processing 1250using coordination descriptions 852 in the building 1240 of the graph ofgeneralized constituents.

The building 1240 of the graph of the generalized constituents can beimpossible without ellipsis restoration 1260. Ellipsis is a languagephenomenon which is represented by the absence of core constituents.Ellipsis can also be related with coordination. The process of theellipsis restoration 1260 is also needed to restore a missingconstituent. An example of an elliptical English sentence is “Thepresident signed the agreement and the secretary [signed] the protocol.”As discussed above, the ellipsis restoration 1260 can be used togenerate the new request and new constituent pairs.

As shown in FIG. 12, the ellipsis processor 1280 or other algorithms,devices, and computer subsystems can be adapted to perform the ellipsisrestoration 1260. In addition, the ellipsis descriptions 852 whichcontain proform models can be adapted to aid the ellipsis processor 1280and process core ellipsis to build the graph 1202 of generalizedconstituents. Proforms may be auxiliary elements inserted into asentence when establishing non-tree links. A proform model may includetemplates (patterns) of syntforms. These proform templates determine therequired surface slots and their linear order. All constituents in thesentence for each proform are searched and the possibility to attach theconstituent to the first of the required slots of the syntform-templateis determined.

The coordination processing 1250 and the ellipsis restoration 1260 areperformed during each program cycle of the dispatcher 1290 after thebuilding 1240 of the graph of the generalized constituents and thebuilding 1240 may continue, as indicated by an arrow of returning back1242. If the ellipsis restoration 1260 is needed and called upon duringthe rough syntactic analysis 530 due to, for example, the presence ofconstituents left alone without any parent constituents being attachedto, only these constituents are processed.

The dispatcher 1290 stops when the active request queue is empty andcannot be refilled. The dispatcher 1290 can be a device, system, oralgorithm, which keeps all the information about the constituents thathave been modified. A constituent is considered modified if changes havebeen introduced to any of its properties which describe the sub-tree,including boundaries and the set of pre-child constituents. In addition,during the building 1240 of the generalized constituents 1222, clausesubstitution is performed. Clauses for direct speech and proper namesare substituted.

FIG. 13 is an example of a graph 1300 of generalized constituents forthe sentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” Theconstituents are represented by rectangles, each constituent having alexeme as its core. Morphological paradigm (as a rule, the part ofspeech) of a constituent core is expressed by grammemes of the part ofspeech and displayed in broken brackets below the lexeme. Amorphological paradigm as a part of word-inflection description 710 ofmorphological description 501 contains all information aboutword-inflection of one or more part of speech. For example, since “life”can have two parts of speech: <Adjective> and <Noun> (which isrepresented by the generalized morphological paradigm <Noun&Pronoun>),two constituents for “life” are shown in the graph 1300.

Links in the graph 1300 represent filled surface slots of constituentcores. Slot names are displayed on the arrows of the graph. Anyconstituent is formed by a lexeme-core which may have outgoing namedarrows which denotes surface slots 815 filled by child constituents. Anincoming arrow means attaching this constituent to a surface slot ofanother constituent. The graph 1300 is so complicated and has so manyarrows, because it shows all relationships which can be establishedbetween constituents of the sentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeedin life.” Among them there are many relationships in the graph 1300which, however, will be discarded. A value of said rough rating is savedby each arrow denoting a filled surface slot. Surface slot andrelationships with high rating scores are selected hierarchically duringthe next step of syntactic analysis.

Often several arrows may connect the same pairs of constituents. Itmeans that there are different acceptable surface models for this pairof constituents, and several surface slots of the parent constituent maybe independently filled by this child constituent. So, four surfaceslots named Object_Direct 1310, Object_Indirect_in 1320, Subject 1330and AdjunctTime 1335 of the parent constituent “succeed<Verb>” 1350 maybe independently filled by the child constituent “life<Noun&Pronoun>”1340 in accordance with surface model of the constituent“succeed<Verb>”. Thus, roughly speaking “in <Preposition>” 1345 and“life<Noun&Pronoun>” 1340 form a new constituent with the core “life”and it, in turn, form with “succeed<Verb>” 1350 four variants of anothernew constituents with the core “succeed<Verb>” which is attached toanother parent constituent, for example, to #NormalSentence<Clause>1360in the surface slot Verb 1370, and to “boy<Noun&Pronoun>” 1390 in thesurface slot RelativClause_DirectFinite 1390 The marked element#NormalSentence<Clause>, being the “root”, corresponds to the wholesentence.

Precise Syntactic Analysis

FIG. 14 illustrates in detail the precise syntactic analysis 540performed to select the best syntactic structure 1402 according one ormore embodiments of the invention. The precise syntactic analysis 540 isperformed top-down from the higher levels to the bottom lower levels,from the node of the potential top of the graph 1202 of the generalizedconstituents down to its bottom-level child constituents.

The precise syntactic analysis 540 is performed to build a syntactictree, which is a tree of the best syntactic structure 1402, for thesource sentence. Many syntactic structures can be built and the mostprobable syntactic structure is obtained as the best syntactic structure1402. The best syntactic structure 1402 is obtained on the basis ofcalculating ratings using a priori and statistical ratings 1466 from thegraph 1202 of the generalized constituents. The statistical ratings maybe obtained through a process of preliminary gathering and processing ofstatistics, as shown in FIG. 4. The a priori and statistical ratings1466 may include ratings of the lexical meanings, such as frequency (orprobability), ratings of each of the syntactic constructions (e.g.,idioms, collocations, etc.) for each element of the sentence, and thedegree of correspondence of the selected syntactic constructions to thesemantic descriptions of the deep slots 914. During precise syntacticanalysis 540 hypotheses about the overall syntactic structure of thesentence and its parts are generated and precise rating scores of suchhypotheses are computed and stored.

Each hypothesis about the overall syntactic structure of the sentence isrepresented by a tree which is a subgraph of the graph 1202 of thegeneralized constituents to cover the entire sentence, and rating iscomputed for each syntactic tree. During the precise syntactic analysis540, hypotheses about the syntactic structure of the source sentence areverified by calculating several types of ratings. These ratings arecomputed as the degree of correspondence of the fillers of the surfaceslots 815 of the constituent to their grammatical and semanticdescriptions, such as grammatical restrictions (e.g., the grammaticalvalues 814) in the syntfomis 812 and semantic restrictions on thefillers of the deep slots 914 in the deep models 912. Another types ofratings are the degree of correspondence of the lexical meanings 1012 tothe pragmatic descriptions 940, which may be absolute and/or relativeprobability ratings of the syntactic constructions as denoted by thesurface models 810, and the degree of compatibility of their lexicalmeanings, among others. Some of these ratings may be obtained through aprocess of preliminary gathering and processing of statistics as shownin FIG. 4.

The computed rating scores for each hypothesis may be obtained on thebasis of rough ratings found during the rough syntactic analysis 530.For example, a rough assessment is made for each generalized constituentin the graph 1202 of the generalized constituents and ratings scores canbe computed. There are special rules in NLC which may assign a “bonus”or a “penalty” to a lexical meaning or a syntactic construction. Thesebonuses and penalties are also taken into account during computingrating scores. Various syntactic trees can be built with differentratings. Rating scores are obtained, and these computed rating scoresare used to generate hypotheses about the overall syntactic structure ofthe sentence. To achieve this, the hypotheses with the highest ratingare selected. These hypotheses are generated by advancing hypothesesabout the structure of the child constituents which are most probable inorder to obtain the most probable hypothesis about the overall syntacticstructure of the sentence. Ratings are performed during precisesyntactic analysis until a satisfactory result is obtained and a bestsyntactic tree having highest rating can be built.

Those hypotheses with the most probable syntactic structure of a wholesentence can also be generated and obtained. From syntactic structure1402 variants with higher ratings to syntactic structure 1402 variantswith more lower ratings, syntactic structure hypotheses are generatedduring precise syntactic analysis until a satisfactory result isobtained and a best syntactic tree which has the highest possible ratingcan be built.

The best syntactic tree is selected as the syntactic structurehypothesis with the highest rating value available from the graph 1202of the generalized constituents. This syntactic tree is considered asthe best (the most probable) hypothesis about the syntactic structure ofthe source sentence 512. Non-tree links in the tree are assigned, andaccordingly, the syntactic tree is transformed into a graph as the bestsyntactic structure 1402, representing the best hypothesis about thesyntactic structure of the source sentence 512. If non-treerelationships cannot be assigned in the selected best syntactic tree,the syntactic tree with the second-best rating is selected as the bestsyntactic tree for further analysis.

When the precise syntactic analysis 540 is unsuccessful or the mostprobable hypotheses cannot be found after initial precise syntacticanalysis, returning back 544 denoting unsuccessful syntactic structurebuilding from the precise syntactic analysis 540 back to the roughsyntactic analysis 530 is provided and all syntfomms, not just the bestsynfforms, are considered during the syntactic analysis. If no bestsyntactic trees are found or the system has failed to define non-treerelationships in all the selected “best” trees, additional roughsyntactic analysis 530 may be performed taking into consideration “bad”syntform which were not analyzed before for the method of the invention.

As shown in FIG. 14, the precise syntactic analysis 540 may containvarious stages, including a preliminary stage, a stage 1450 forgenerating a graph of precise constituents, a stage 1460 for generatingsyntactic trees and differential selection of the best syntactic tree, astage 1470 for generating non-tree links and obtaining a best syntacticstructure, among others. The graph 1202 of generalized constituents isanalyzed during the preliminary stage which prepares the data for theprecise syntactic analysis 540.

The preliminary stage of the precise syntactic analysis 540 may includefragment specification 1410 and generating 1450 of a graph of preciseconstituents to obtain a graph of linear division 1440 and a graph ofprecise constituents 1430, respectively. A linear divisional graphbuilder 1415 and builder 1490 of precise Constituents may be adapted toprocess the fragment specification 1410 for obtaining the graph oflinear division 1440 and the graph of precise constituents 1430. Inaddition, the models 1232 of the generalized constituents can be usedduring the building 1450 of the graph of precise constituents.

During the precise syntactic analysis 540, the precise constituents arebuilt recursively. Proper constituents are generated backwardly andrecursively. The precise constituents are built from the generalizedconstituents 1222 to initially perform the fragment specification 1410thereon. The building 1450 of the graph of precise constituents mayinclude reviewing the graph 1440 of linear division, recursivelybuilding the graph 1430 of the precise constituents which may containsfixed but not yet filled child slots, recursive performing the fragmentspecification 1410 for each graph arc lying on the way, and recursivefilling a child slot to attach a child precise constituent builtpreviously, among others. The generalized constituents 1222 are used tobuild the graph 1430 of precise constituents for generating one or moretrees of precise constituents. For each generalized constituent, itspossible boundaries and its child constituents are marked.

The stage 1460 for generating the syntactic trees is performed togenerate the best syntactic tree 1420. The stage 1470 for generatingnon-tree links may use the rules of establishing non-tree links and theinformation from syntactic structures 1475 of previous sentences toanalyze one or more best syntactic trees 1420 and select the bestsyntactic structure 1402 among the various syntactic structures. Agenerator 1485 for generating non-tree links is adapted to perform thestage 1470.

As shown in FIG. 14, the fragment specification 1410 of the precisesyntactic analysis 540 is performed initially to consider variousfragments which are continuous segments of a parent constituent. Eachgeneralized child constituent can be included into one or more parentconstituent in one or more fragments. The graph of linear division 1440(GLD) can be built as the result of the fragment specification 1410 toreflect the relationships of the parent constituent fragments with thecore and child constituents. Additionally, the surface slot for thecorresponding child constituents is assigned. The graph of lineardivision 1440 is the framework for building the graph 1430 of preciseconstituents. Precise constituents are nodes of the graph 1430 and oneor more trees of precise constituents are generated on the basis of thegraph 1430 of precise constituents.

The graph 1430 of precise constituents is an intermediate representationbetween the graph 1202 of generalized constituents and syntactic trees.Unlike a syntactic tree, the graph 1430 of precise constituents canstill have several alternative fillers for a surface slot. The preciseconstituents are formed into a graph such that a certain constituent canbe included into several alternative parent constituents in order tooptimize further analysis for selecting syntactic trees. Such anintermediate graph structure is rather compact for calculatingstructural ratings.

During the recursive stage 1450 for generating the graph of the preciseconstituents, the precise constituents are built traversally on thegraph 1440 of linear division via the left and right boundaries of thecore constituents. For each built path on the graph 1440 of lineardivision, the set of syntforms is determined; linear order is checked(verified) and rated for each of the syntforms. Accordingly, a preciseconstituent is created for each of the syntforms, and the building ofprecise child constituents is recursively initiated.

When a precise child constituent is built, an attempt is made to attachthe precise child constituent to the precise parent constituent. Whenattaching child constituents, restrictions which the child constituentsimpose on the set of meanings of a parent constituent are taken intoaccount, and the upper lexical rating of the link is computed. Whentrying to attach each child constituent, two types of restrictions,which are represented by means of bit masks, are formed: the restriction(mask) on grammatical values of the parent constituent, which isreceived with the help of the agreement rule, and the restriction (mask)on grammatical values of the child constituent, which is received withthe help of the agreement or government rule. For each description of adeep slot which may have diathesis correspondence to the current surfaceslot, the following restrictions are obtained: the restriction on thelexical meanings of the parent constituent, the restriction on thepossible lexical meanings of the child constituent and the restrictionon the preferred lexical meanings of the child constituent (the set ofpreferred semantic classes in the description of the deep slot).Additionally, deep rating is obtained as a degree of conformity of thedeep slot with these restrictions.

If there is a suitable identifying word combination in the sentence, forexample, an idiom, which meets the restriction on parent lexicalmeanings, the rating of word combination is added to the deep rating. Ifnone of the lexical meanings of child constituent meets the deeprestrictions of this deep slot, attachment to this deep slot isimpossible. Then, the possibility of attachment to the other deep slotsis checked. A deep slot which has the maximal value of the deep ratingis selected.

The masks of grammemes for all child constituents which could beattached are merged. The mask on grammatical values of the parentconstituent is used for calculating its grammatical value. For example,when child constituents are attached, the grammatical value of thesyntactic form according to its correspondence with the childconstituents is defined more precisely.

Coordination is also processed when a child constituent attached duringthe stage 1450. For slots filled by coordination, there exists a need tocheck that not only the apex of coordination can be attached but itsother components as well.

Additionally, ellipsis is also processed when a child constituentattached during the stage 1450. Surface slots which are required in thesyntform and do not permit ellipsis may be empty. In this case, whengenerating a precise constituent, a proform is placed in the empty slot.

As result of the stage 1450, the graph of the precise constituents 1430,which covers the whole sentence, is built. If the stage 1450 forgenerating the graph of the precise constituents has failed to producethe graph of the precise constituents 1430 which would cover the entiresentence, a procedure which attempts to cover the sentence withsyntactically-separate fragments is initiated. In this case, adummy(fictitious) generalized constituent is generated, where allgeneralized constituents of the sentence may be attached.

As shown in FIG. 14, when the graph of precise constituents 1430, whichcovers the sentence, was built, one or more syntactic trees can begenerated at the step of generating 1460 during the precise syntacticanalysis 540. Generating 1460 of the syntactic trees allows generatingone or more trees with a certain syntactic structure. Since surfacestructure is fixed in a given constituent, adjustments of structuralrating scores, including punishing synfforms which are difficult or donot correspond to the style, or rating the communicative linear order,etc., may be made.

The graph of precise constituents 1430 represents several alternativesaccording to different fragmentation of the sentence and/or differentsets of surface slots. So, the graph of precise constituents representsa set of possible trees—syntactic trees, because each slot can haveseveral alternative fillers. The fillers with the best rating may form aprecise constituent (a tree) with the best rating. Thus the preciseconstituent represents unambiguous syntactic tree with the best rating.At the stage 1460, these alternatives are searched and one or more treeswith a fixed syntactic structure are built. Non-tree links in the builttrees are not defined yet. The result of this step is a set of bestsyntactic trees 1420 which have the best rating values.

The syntactic trees are built on the basis of the graph of preciseconstituents. For these precise constituents, syntactic forms, theboundaries of the child constituents and the surface slots aredetermined. The different syntactic trees are built in the order ofdescending of their structural rating. Lexical ratings cannot be fullyused because their deep semantic structure is not defined yet. Unlikethe initial precise constituents, every resulting syntactic tree has afixed syntactic structure, and every precise constituent in it has onlyone filler for each surface slot.

During the stage 1460, the best syntactic tree 1420 may generally bebuilt recursively and traversally from the graph 1430 of preciseconstituents. The best syntactic subtrees are built for the best childprecise constituents, syntactic structure is built on the basis of thegiven precise constituent, and child subtrees are attached to thegenerated syntactic structure. The best syntactic tree 1420 can bebuilt, for example, by selecting a surface slot with the best qualityamong the surface slots of a given constituent and generating a copy ofa child constituent whose sub-tree is the best quality sub-tree. Thisprocedure is applied recursively to the child precise constituent.

On the basis of each precise constituent, the best syntactic tree with acertain rating score can be generated. This rating score can be computedbeforehand and specified in the precise constituent. After the bestsyntactic tree is generated, a new precise constituent is generated onthe basis of the previous precise constituent. This new preciseconstituent in its turn generates a syntactic tree with the second-bestvalue of the rating score. Accordingly, on the basis of the preciseconstituent, the best syntactic tree may be obtained, and a new preciseconstituent may be built.

For example, two kinds of ratings can be kept for each preciseconstituent during the stage 1460, the quality of the best syntactictree which can be built on the basis of this precise constituent, andthe quality of the second-best syntactic tree. Also, the rating of theprecise constituent includes the rating of the best syntactic tree whichcan be built on the basis of this precise constituent.

The rating of a syntactic tree may be computed on the basis, but notlimited to, of the following values: structural rating of theconstituent; upper rating for the set of lexical meanings; upper deeprating for child slots; ratings of child constituents, etc. When aprecise constituent is analyzed to compute the rating of the syntactictree which can be generated on the basis of the precise constituent,child constituents with the best rating are analyzed in every surfaceslot.

During the stage 1460, rating calculation for the second-best syntactictree differs, but not limited to, in the fact that for one of the childslots, its second-best child constituent is selected. Any syntactic treewith a minimal rating loss relative to the best syntactic tree must beselected during this stage 1460.

When the stage 1460, additional restrictions on constituents may betaken into account. Each precise constituent which gets into the besttree may be checked for additional restrictions. If a constituent or oneof its child constituents does not meet the restrictions, theconstituent may receive a mark that its best tree does not meet theadditional restrictions. A check may be performed to determine whetherthis subtree meets the additional restrictions.

The rules of additional restrictions are checked during the stage 1460to make sure whether a constituent meets the restrictions but alsosuggest the steps which should be taken in certain slots so that theconstituent will meet the restrictions. This approach can alsosignificantly increase task-orientation of the search. The restrictionsused during the stage 1460 can be defined for any surface slot and thecorresponding deep slot. On the basis of the specified restrictions, thedifference in quality between the best and second-best tree for thissurface slot is computed. As a result, a generation method is providedwhereby a tree which meets the additional restrictions can be found assoon as possible.

Near the end of the stage 1460, a syntactic tree with a fully-definedsyntactic structure is built, i.e. the syntactic form, childconstituents and surface slots that they fill are defined. Since thistree is generated on the basis of the best hypothesis about thesyntactic structure of the initial sentence, this tree is called thebest syntactic tree 1420. The returning back 1462 from generating 1460the syntactic trees to the building 1450 of the graph of preciseconstituents is provided when there are no syntactic trees withsatisfactory rating generated, or the precise syntactic analysis isunsuccessful.

FIG. 15 illustrates schematically an exemplary syntactic tree accordingto one embodiment of the invention. In FIG. 15, constituents are shownas rectangles, arrows show filled surface slots. A constituent has aword at its core (Core) with its morphological value (M-value) andsemantic parent (Semantic class) and can have smaller constituents ofthe lower level attached. This attachment is shown by means of arrowsnamed Surface Slot. Each constituent has also a syntactic value(S-value), expressed as the grammemes of the syntactic categoriesthereof. These grammemes are the properties of the syntactic formsselected for the constituent during the precise syntactic analysis 540.

FIG. 16 is an example of syntactic tree of the above mentioned sentence“This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” This syntactic tree is firstgenerated as a result of stage 1460 of generating syntactic trees of theprecise syntactic analysis 540 performed on the graph 1300 of thegeneralized constituents shown in FIG. 13, and can be represented as asubgraph of the graph 1300 of the generalized constituents, according toone or more embodiments of the invention.

A rectangle shows a constituent with the selected lexical meaning of thecore and its morphological paradigm in broken brackets, for example,Verb or Noun&Pronoun. The root of the syntactic tree 1600 is aparticular value #NormalSentence, which serves as a clause value. Thearrows are marked by the names of the surface slots, such as Modal,Verb, Subject, Demonstrative, etc., and for some of the surface slots,the corresponding rating scores are shown.

During the stage 1470, non-tree links are specified for the bestsyntactic tree 1420. Since, as a rule, non-tree links appear on thesyntactic tree, and it is not a tree anymore, it is called a syntacticstructure after the stage 1470. Since many different non-tree links maybe specified, several syntactic structures with defined non-tree links,i.e. with a fully-defined surface structure, may be obtained. The stage1470 may result a syntactic structure 1402 with the best rating—the bestsyntactic structure. During the stage 1470, proforms are inserted intothe best syntactic tree 1420, non-tree links are specified, such as byperforming ellipsis description 852 and coordination description 854.Additionally, the grammatical agreement between each element of thesentence, which may be as a relationship of control, for example, acontroller and a controlled element, using the referential andstructural control description 856, is checked. Additionally, syntacticstructures 1475 of previous sentences may be used.

Non-tree links are established on the best syntactic tree 1420—the treeof constituents with unambiguously fixed fillers of child slots.However, during the stage 1470, many different non-tree links for thesyntactic tree, which may be the best at the current moment, can begenerated. Accordingly, several different syntactic structures withnon-tree links may be built for each syntactic tree. These syntacticstructures or syntactic structure variants generated from differentsyntactic trees may vary in the inserted proforms, their positions inthe tree, and non-tree links. To be able to define an antecedent in theprevious text, several of the syntactic structures 1475 of previoussentences from the previous syntactic analysis can be saved. Thesyntactic structure with the best rating is selected as the bestsyntactic structure 1402. If the stage 1470 is unsuccessful, thereturning back 1472 to the stage 1460 is provided to obtain thenext-best syntactic tree 1420 with the next value of rating score.

Many other syntactic trees may be generated during precise syntacticanalysis 540. These trees can be generated one after another, while thestage 1470 to generate non-tree links on the previous syntactic tree isunsuccessful. The difference between these syntactic trees lies in theirstructures, filled surface slots for some constituents, and/or themorphological paradigms for some constituents. For example, during theprecise syntactic analysis 540 of the above mentioned sentence “This boyis smart, he'll succeed in life.” the stage 1470 was unsuccessful on thetree 1600 and some other syntactic trees. FIG. 17 is one of syntactictrees for the sentence extracted from the graph of generalizedconstituents from FIG. 13, it is the first from generated trees whicheventuate successfully of the stage 1470. So, the tree 1700 isconsidered as the best syntactic tree.

FIG. 18 is one example of a syntactic structure 1402, which is obtainednear the end of the stage 1470 for the sentence “This boy is smart,he'll succeed in life.” with non-tree links generated on the basis ofthe best syntactic tree which is shown on FIG. 17. A non-tree link oftype “Anaphoric Model—Subject” 1810 is established from the constituent“boy” 1820 to the constituent “he” 1830 to identify the subjects of thetwo parts of the complex sentence. Additionally, a proform PRO 1840 isinserted to establish a link between the controller (“boy”) 1820 and thecontrolled element (“smart”) 1850. As a result, the complement “smart”1850 fills the surface slot “Modifier_Attributive” 1860 of thecontroller “child” 1820 by means of a link of type “Control-Complement”1870.

During the stage 1470, proforms are inserted. For every element of thesentence which can be a controller, its own proform is inserted. If apronoun (or a proform substituted during the rough syntactic analysis)is controlled, a copy of the pronoun is uniformly made. As a result,every controlled element has a single controller. A controller can haveseveral controlled element variants as different alternatives. Ideally,all available proforms are inserted. However, in the final syntactictree, there may be only one of the control element variant remained. Inaddition, the set of meanings for a controlled element may be computedfrom the controller; for example, a set of lexical meanings may be takenfrom the controller, a set of grammatical values may be limited by theagreement rule, etc. In general, the initial mask of a proform resultsin all the available meanings, whereas the initial mask of a pronoun maypermit some meanings, e.g., as restricted by the morphological form ofeach element of the sentence. For example, after checking with agreementrules, the mask of a pronoun can be empty such that any linking orpairing up between the controller and its proform cannot be established.For example, in some cases, the gender of the controller and the pronounmay not agree; in these cases, only limited numbers of proformsinserted.

At the stage 1470, the possibility to attach the controlled element tothe surface slot is determined in a similar way as in attaching a childprecise constituent in order to narrow the numbers of the qualifiedmeanings of the controlled element. In general, the parent constituentmay be left unchanged for a period of time without changing itsgrammatical value, and the lexical meaning of the parent constituent maybe checked again at a later stage. Similarly, the controller may not bemodified until a later stage.

The referential and structural control description 856 contains ruleswhich can generate several alternative controlled elements during thestage 1470. The search for controlled elements can be organized as acall of all the rules in the slots of the syntactic tree which havealready been filled. Proforms may be sorted by their quality rating.Proforms which were substituted during the rough syntactic analysis buthave not received a controller can be deleted from the syntacticstructure.

During the stage 1470, for every syntactic tree, a best syntacticstructure with attached non-tree links can be generated, as a result. Ifno valid non-tree links have been generated, the syntactic, structure ofthe best syntactic tree 1420 may be invalid. In this case, thesecond-best syntactic tree 1420 may be analyzed. If non-tree links havenot been successfully established, a returning back 1472 to the stage1460 is provided to obtain the next syntactic tree, which may have adifferent rating score, for generating another syntactic structure withnon-tree links as the best syntactic structure. If none of the returningbacks 1462 and 1472 for the precise syntactic analysis 140 issuccessful, the returning back 544 to the rough syntactic analysis 530is provided. Additional rough syntactic analysis 530 can be performedwith additional consideration of any syntforms which may not have beenanalyzed previously.

As a result of the rough syntactic analysis 530 and the precisesyntactic analysis 540, the syntactic structure with specified surfaceand deep slots is built. There may be some ambiguity left in grammaticalvalues. The syntactic structure represents a full syntactic analysis ofthe sentence, indicates its surface and deep slots, and lexical meaningswhich have been unambiguously selected by this stage. Presence ofnon-tree links in the sentence determines, in the general case,generation of several different final structures according to differentvariants of establishing non-tree links. Final syntactic structures aresorted in the order of descending rating.

FIG. 19 illustrates a best syntactic structure 1900 with semanticparents of lexical meanings and their grammemes generated for thesentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” during the precisesyntactic analysis 540. The best syntactic structure 1900 containsnon-tree links 1930 and 1940, the lexical meanings 1012 with semanticclasses as their semantic parents (1002), and their grammatical values1008. The semantic parents of the lexical meanings are shown by means ofa colon and capital letters, for example, “life:LIVE”. Grammaticalvalues are displayed in broken brackets. Because the deep slots havealready been determined in the end of precise analysis 540, instead ofthe surface slots the corresponding deep slots are displayed in FIG. 19:Agent, Locative, Agent, etc. To identify the elements “boy” 1920 and“he” 1930 by means of the non-tree link 1930, as it was displayed inFIG. 19, the element “boy:BOY” 1910 is copied to the element 1920,keeping the morphological value “Pronoun” in its grammatical value.

Semantic Analysis

As shown in FIG. 5, the semantic analysis 550 is performed after precisesyntactic analysis 540 when one or more the syntactic trees are formedand the best one with the highest rating score found. FIG. 20 is anexemplary process flow diagram illustrating the semantic analysis 550according to one or more embodiments of the invention. During semanticanalysis 550 a semantic structure 2002 of the source sentence 512 isbuild. The resulting semantic structure 2002 of the source sentence 512is built from the best syntactic structure 1402 according to variousapplicable analysis rules. Constituents for the semantic structure 2002are constructed by applying diathesis correspondences between thesurface (syntactic) and deep (semantic) slots of the constituents fromthe syntactic structure 1402 and by applying the rules of semanticinterpretation of the grammatical values of the constituents against aset of semantemes of various semantic categories. In one aspect, thesemantic structure 2002 includes a tree of deep constituents, each deepconstituent having one semantic class.

The language-independent semantic structure 2002 is generated during thesemantic analysis 550 using the diatheses 817, the deep models 912, theanalysis rules 860 (such as semanteme calculation rules 862 andnormalization rules 864), semantic descriptions 504 and lexical meaningsdescriptions 503 of the source language as well as pragmatic context2044 (as part of pragmatic descriptions 940) and communicativedescriptions 880. The semantic analysis treats the syntactic structureof a sentence in any language as a surface representation of alanguage-independent semantic structure.

A semantic structure 2002 is built from the selected syntactic structure1402 by performing steps 2010, 2020, 2030 of generating semanticstructure, calculating communicative semantemes, and normalizating andcalculating semantemes, among others. The syntactic structure 1402 asthe input data of the semantic analysis 550 may include specified deepslots and selected lexical meanings, the semantic structure 2002 may begenerated by substituting each lexical meaning in the source languagewith its language-independent semantic class and confirming the linearorder of the all the lexical meanings. Once the linear order isconfirmed, the surface slots can be deleted when generating the semanticstructure 2002 since only the deep slots 914 and deep slotsdescriptions, etc., are remained during the building of the semanticstructure 2002.

During the semantic analysis 550 to transform the syntactic structure1402 into the semantic structure 2002, deep correspondences forstructural elements of the syntactic structure 1402 are established, thegrammatical values of the constituents from the syntactic structure 1402are interpreted against semantemes to represent language-independentsemantic meanings, each lexical meaning is substituted with itslanguage-independent semantic class, and semantemes with semanticfeatures are generated. The resulting semantic structure 2002 is a tree(containing established non-tree links), with language-independentsemantic classes as nodes and a set of semantemes and deep slots asbranches.

During the step 2010, the semantic structure 2002 is generated from thebest syntactic structure 1402 using the semantic descriptions and thelexical descriptions 503, and the diathesis correspondences 817 betweenthe surface slots 815 and the deep slots 914 for each constituent of thesyntactic structure.

At the step 2020, communicative semantemes for constituents in thesemantic structure 2002 are computed using semantemes calculating rules862 and communicative descriptions 880. The semantemes calculating rules862 can be used to semantically interpret the grammatical values of theconstituents against a set of semantemes of various semantic categories.Once the communicative semantemes are computed at step 2020, all othersemantemes can be computed, replacing grammemes with the resultingcomputed semantemes. The communicative semantemes are used to expressthe communicative properties of a sentence, such as the standard linearorder, the inverse linear order of a relative clause, or the linearorder of an interrogative sentence.

At the step 2030 semantemes are normalized and further computed. Thepragmatic context 2044 and the analysis rules 860, such as thesemantemes calculating rules 862 and normalization rules 864, may beused during semantemes normalization to remove language asymmetries. Thesemantic normalization rules 864 are applied to remove languageasymmetries. For example, “all of any of the following functions” can benormalized to “all of the following functions”. As another example,“each of all of us” can be normalized to “each of us”. As still anotherexample, “He can do it, can't he?” can be normalized to “He can do it.”;since the deep slot of TagQuestion is filled and saved in the semanticstructure, the constituents “can't he” are removed.

The semantic normalization rules 864 are lexicalized and linked tospecific semantic classes and lexical meanings. There are two types ofthe semantic normalization rules 864: rules to be used prior tocalculating the semantemes for generating the semantic structure 2002;rules to be used after calculating the semantemes. A semantic class isconnected with ordered lists of transformation rules of the first andsecond type. Thus, the semantic normalization rules 864 can be usedprior to calculating the semantemes and after calculating the semantemesusing the respective semantic normalization rules 864.

In general, rules used during the semantic analysis 550 are applied tothe constituents of the semantic structure 2002 from the top down, froma parent constituent to child constituents. A constituent is analyzedwith rules connected to the semantic class of its core, in the order ofdescription. Rules connected with a certain class are used for all itschildren. In a child class there is a possibility to re-define inheritedrules: add new rules, change the order of application, forbid inheritedrules, etc.

The normalization rules 864 are applied to the semantic structure andmodify it. Some of the semantemes calculating rules 862 may be usedcyclically as long as their conditions are met. Use of semantemescalculating rules 862 leads, in particular, to substitution oflanguage-dependent characteristics, grammemes, with universalcharacteristics—semantemes.

When the semantemes for different constituents are computed at the step2030 of normalizating and calculating semantemes, an additionalprocedure may be used. A semantemes calculating rule can check thepresence of certain semantemes of other constituents. Such a rule canonly work after all the semantemes which are specified in this rule havebeen computed. To cope with this situation, the rules are started fromthe child constituents to the parent constituents. If a productionrefers to constituent semantemes which have not yet been computed, therule stops with a special value which says that the rule completion mustbe postponed. A traversal of the tree from the top down is made,starting the rules which were postponed at the first stage. Once again,a traversal of the tree from the child constituents to the parent ismade by starting the rest of the postponed rules.

The result of the semantic analysis 550 is the semantic structure 2002of the source sentence built from the best syntactic structure 1402according to rules for the semantic analysis 550. A semantic structure,unlike a syntactic structure, uses universal language-independentconcepts and components, such as semantic clasies, semantemes, deepslots, among others.

As shown in FIG. 20, a dispatcher 2040 for dispatching semanteme rulesis adapted to execute the normalization of the semantic structure 2002and calculating semantemes by applying the analysis rules 860. As aresult, every lexical meaning in the semantic structure 2002 issubstituted with its universal parent—a semantic class. Any possibledifferences of the child lexical meanings are saved in a list semantemesgenerated during the application of the analysis rules 860. Adescription of a constituent in the final semantic structure 2002includes semantic classes which are parents for lexical meaningsrepresented in the best syntactic structure 1402, semantemes which arecomputed according to the analysis rules 860 or assigned tocorresponding parent semantic classes, and child constituents. Whenthere is a link to a child constituent, the deep slot that can be filledis specified. The semantic structure 2002 is language-independent andmay include, but is not limited to, a tree of deep constituents, deepconstituents, and semantic classes which are the fillers of deep slots.Accordingly, the semantic structure 2002 can be applied to describe themeanings of a sentence from any natural or artificial languages.

FIG. 21 illustrates an exemplary resulting semantic structure 1700 ofthe sentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” The deepconstituents are represented by rectangles with a semantic classindicated inside, for example, DECLARATIVE_MAIN_CLAUSE, TO_SUCCEED, BOY,LIVE, etc. The semantemes which are computed after applying the analysisrules 860 are displayed in broken brackets for each semantic class. Forexample, <Imperfective, Realis, Indicative, Present> is the semantemesfor the semantic class BE 2110. Some of the applied analysis rules aredisplayed near rectangles with the semantic class. Deep slots arerepresented as arrows and named; for example, Object, Agent, Locative,etc. Non-tree links are represented as dotted arrows.

Natural Language Sentence Synthesis

FIG. 22 illustrates one example of a method 2200 exemplifying processflow diagram of synthesis 560 of an output natural language sentence.The step is illustratively described below can be configured togenerating a surface syntactic structure of a sentence in an outputlanguage from a language-independent semantic structure, such as alanguage-independent semantic structure generated after analyzing asource sentence in a source language.

The method 2200 for generating a natural language sentence 514 in anoutput language may include a step 2220 of performing a lexicalselection on a semantic structure 2002, a step 2240 of building asurface structure 2204 of a sentence to be generated from the semanticstructure 2002 with selected lexical meanings, a step 2260 of restoringmovements and determining linear order on the surface structure 2240,and a step 2280 of performing morphological synthesis on the surfacestructure 2204 in the output language.

For a semantic structure 2002, the lexical selection 2220 and building2240 a surface structure are performed, and for the obtained surfacestructure 2204 of a sentence to be generated restoring 2260 movementsand determining the linear order are performed, and the morphologicalsynthesis 2280 is executed to generate the output sentence 514 in anynatural language, for which all the necessary language descriptions havebeen created. The output sentence must express that meaning (sense) inthe given natural language, which is represented by the sourcelanguage-independent semantic structure.

Lexical selection 2220 is selecting one or more lexical meanings for adeep constituent core. Any constituent has a word at its core and caninclude child constituents at lower levels. As a rule, the grammatical,syntactical and morphological properties of the deep constituent,expressed by means of a set of semantemes, are the same as theproperties of its core. At the step of the lexical selection 2220 in thesemantic class of the core the lexical meanings of the target languageis selected. As lexical meanings 1012 in lexical description 503 havetheir semantic values 1010 which are also expressed by means of a set ofsemantemes, and those lexical meanings in the semantic class areselected, which have a most number of semantemes of the constituentcore.

Also, deep models 912 as a part of semantic description 504 are used atthe step of the lexical selection 2220, because semantic classes of thefillers of the child and parent deep slots are taken into account.Accordingly, those lexical meanings in the semantic class are selected,which have deep slots, and those semantic classes of deep slot fillersin their deep models 912, which correspond to the deep slots andsemantic classes of deep slot fillers of the constituent core.

As a rule, for the cores only those lexical meanings are selected whichare linked to the semantic class in the semantic hierarchy 910 by meansthe relation of mutual semantic representability. The mutual semanticrepresentability means that it is possible the transition not only fromthe lexical meaning to the semantic class, but from the semantic Gass tothe lexical meaning. Any semantic class always has at least one suchlexical meaning-representative in the given natural language.

Additionally, various ratings 505, including statistical and otherratings, may influence on the lexical selection 2220, such as, rating ofthe lexical meaning, rating of the deep slots filling, ratings ofidentifying word-combinations, ratings of deep slots correspondences,bonus for derivational semantemes, rating of correspondence to the localand global pragmatic context, rating of correspondence to theterminological sphere, rating of correspondence to the previousselection. Pair ratings may take into account not only the relationsbetween the parent and child constituents but non-tree links too. Thestatistical ratings may be obtained through a preliminary analysis of atext corpus and subsequent generalization of the statistics during thesteps 420 and 430 shown in FIG. 4. Since there may be many lexicalmeanings meeting the conditions of lexical selection 2220, lexicalmeanings having a best rating are selected at first.

As a rule, at the step of lexical selection 2220 among lexical meaningsactually the one or more is selected, which realizes the most semantemesassigned to the constituent core, on the basis of ratings 505 of lexicalmeanings and ratings of pair correspondence. There are cases, however,when the rules 2224 of lexical selection and structure correction haveto be used. These rules are used when the semantic structure needscorrection in order to overcome the asymmetries between the universalsemantic description and the language-specific syntactic structure.Rules 2224 of lexical selection and structure correction are connectedwith deep slots 914 and transform a sub-tree with the currentconstituent at the top. During this process the rules can substitute anew parent constituent.

The semantic structure correction rules may be used during the lexicalselection in the case when the algorithm of selection of the lexicalmeaning for a semantic class cannot be described with the standardmeans, for example, during the lexical selection the system has to takeinto account the deep slot to be filled, or the semantic class of thechild constituent, etc. For example, the rule for the English languagenamed SingleChoice, containing the instructions: <<Elective>>=>“singleone:SOLE”; <<ZeroElective>>=>“single:SOLE”; allows the system to make aselection of the lexical meaning “single one” from the semantic class“SOLE” if the semanteme of electiveness is assigned to the constituent,or of the lexical meaning “single” if this semanteme is not assigned.Since the category of electiveness is computed and not assigned in thelexical description 503, this selection condition cannot be described inthe semantic hierarchy 910 but can only be specified with the help ofthe rule 2224 of lexical selection and structure correction.

As another example, when the rules 2224 of lexical selection andstructure correction may be used, the deep structure of a certainlanguage differs from the “normalized” language-independent structure,for example, it has an additional constituent or a different directionof government between its constituents, etc. For example, suppose auniversal semantic structure has a constituent which has the semanticclass “NEWS” as its core and a child constituent filling the “Quantity”deep slot. In order to synthesize the syntactically and stylisticallycorrect English phrase “two pieces of news”, the following structurecorrection rule may be used: “NEWS” [Quantity: x, ?y]=> new“piece:CLASSIFIER” [QuantifiedEntity:this][x][y], which transforms thetree in such a way that the parent constituent has the piece:CLASSIFIER″lexical meaning, while “NEWS” becomes the child constituent and fillsthe QuantifiedEntity slot of the parent constituent.

If the rules 2224 of lexical selection and structure correction areapplied, the lexical selection 2220 may entail the transformation of thesemantic stricture 2002; besides, the rule may change the deepproperties of some constituents, such as, semantic value, semantic classof the core, etc. These rules are lexicalized, i.e. they are connectedwith (assigned to) certain objects of the semantic hierarchy 910 and areonly called when such an object is the core of the initial constituent.

As a result, during the lexical selection 2202 the source semanticstructure 2002 may be transformed and each constituent has one or morelexical meaning selected for its, core. On such specified semanticstructure 2002 with specified lexical meanings of the constituents thebuilding 2240 the surface structure is performed. As shown on FIG. 22,various specific language descriptions, such as, syntactic description502, referential and structural control description 856, grammemessynthesis rules 2242, alternative realization rules 2244, and agreementrules 2246, among others, may be used during the building 2240 thesurface structure.

The surface structure 2204 is built by means of a top-down traversal ofthe semantic structure. During this traversal, semantic, lexical andsyntactic properties of each constituent are specified more accurately,and, first of all, the surface slots corresponding to the deep slots aredetermined, the linear order is defined, movements are restored,structural and referential control are checked.

FIG. 23 is a diagram schematically illustrating the idea of a surfacestructure 2300 of a synthesized sentence according to one or moreembodiments of the invention. In FIG. 23, constituents of the surfacestructure 2204 are shown as rectangles, arrows show filled surfaceslots. A constituent has a lexical meaning at its core with its semanticparent (SEMANTIC CLASS) and can have smaller constituents of the lowerlevel attached in some surface slots. This attachment is shown by meansof arrows named Surface Slot. Each constituent may also includesyntactic values and grammatical values, expressed via the grammemes ofthe syntactic categories thereof. These grammemes are the properties ofthe syntactic forms selected for the constituent during the building2240 the surface structure.

Since any lexical meaning 1012 in its lexical description 503 has a deepmodel 912 and a surface model 810 connected by means of diatheses 817,for each lexical meaning corresponding to the constituent core, thefollowing actions may be performed. For each deep slot of the parentconstituent in its diathesis all surface slots are searched for whichmeet the diathesis restrictions. At least one slot may be found. If noslot has been found, the returning back 2230 to the stage of lexicalselection 2220 is provided, and the lexical meaning which has thenext-best rating in the semantic class is selected.

Since there may be many surface slots 815 meeting the conditions ofdiatheses 817 for each lexical meaning 1012, each of these surface slotsmay be considered as a hypothesis related to a surface structure of acorresponding constituent. Such hypothesis may have a rating. Thosehypotheses that may result in a best rating are served at first. Foreach surface slot 815, syntactic forms 812 which meet the requirementsof the surface slot are searched for. If a suitable syntactic form hasnot been detected, this hypothesis is penalized by means of ratingreduction. An additional rating for the correspondence of the semantemesof the part of speech and the grammatical type to the correspondinggrammemes of syntform 812 for each hypothesis is computed.

The hypotheses about surface structure of a constituent are analyzedduring building 2240 the surface structure in the order of descendingrating. If a suitable syntactic form for an analyzed hypothesis isn'tfound, an alternative realization rule 2244 may be applied. Such rule isapplied if the lexical meaning which during lexical selection 2220 isselected hasn't suitable grammatical forms. Alternative realizationrules 2244 usually substitute some semantic class as the parentconstituent and/or transform the semantic structure 2002 what enable tobuild the surface structure with another lexical meaning.

Alternative realization rules 2244 are lexicalized, i.e. they areconnected with (assigned to) certain objects of the semantic hierarchy910 and are a part of lexical description 503. If some alternativerealization rule 2244 was applied and its application has resulted inthe substitution of a semantic class or a new lexical meaning as theparent constituent, this hypothesis is removed from the queue ofhypotheses, all the previous step (searching for syntax forms) arerepeated with it, and thus new hypotheses are generated. Thesehypotheses are added to the list of hypotheses, and ratings of thehypotheses are taken into consideration. The repeated lexical selectionis performed as follows: the lexical meanings which have a syntacticform which is suitable for the parent surface slot, and the lexicalselection 2220 in the sub-tree of this constituent is started.

During building 2240 the surface structure, grammemes synthesis rules2242 are applied. Grammemes synthesis rules 2242 compute grammemes,representing grammatical and morphological values of a constituent, onthe basis a set of semantemes, taking into account the initialgrammatical value of the lexical meaning, parent surface slot andsyntactic form. As a result of these rules applying, semantemes may besubstituted by grammemes. Generally, this rules may have a productionform, a left part of the rule describing a condition of the ruleapplying—one or more semantemes and, additionally, surface slot name,which a constituent must have, and a right part of the rule containingone or more grammemes, which the constituent are assigned as result ofthe rule applying. As the order of the grammemes synthesis rules 2242applying may be determined by presence not only some semantemes, butgrammemes too, so, not only semantemes but, additionally, grammemes maybe included in the condition of a rule applying.

The grammemes synthesis rules 2242 allow the system to detect agrammatical value of the lexical meaning which realizes as manysemantemes as possible, and to compute the value of all semanticgrammatical categories. Each applied rule determines more accurately thegrammatical meaning of the constituent as it is written in the appliedproductions. If a production tries to assign to a constituent agrammatical value that contradicts the value that the constituentalready has, such a production will not work even if its requirement ismet by the current constituent.

Semantemes may be realized not only grammatically but also lexically,namely by substitution of the parent or child constituents. Somesemantemes may be realized only by means of substituting auxiliary wordsinto the parent constituent, for example, modal or auxiliary verbs. Inthis case, the rule creates and substitutes a new parent constituent.The new parent constituent contains a semantic class which is attachedto a slot of the initial parent constituent. Additionally, the rule mustmove the semantemes which must be realized by the syntactic form of thesubstituted parent constituent (for example, aspect-tense) to the parentconstituent and delete these semantemes from the current constituent.The rule must attach the current constituent to the deep slot of thesubstituted parent constituent. For the semantic class of new parentconstituent the lexical selection 2220 in the sub-tree of thisconstituent is executed.

During building 2240 the surface structure, for each hypothesis aboutsurface structure of a constituent all syntactic forms which correspondto the computed grammatical value are detected, and each hypothesis isconsidered separately for each detected syntactic form. Each separatedin such a way hypothesis is verified according to morphologicaldescription 501 whether the core of this constituent can be synthesizedon the basis of its partially computed grammatical value. If this cannotbe done, the hypothesis is deleted. A preliminary rating for eachhypothesis is computed and they are arranged in the order of descendingrating scores.

The syntactic forms are analyzed in the order of descending rating. If aconstituent has deep slots which are filled without diathesiscorrespondence, a corresponding alternative realization rule 2244 iscalled for each such slot. This algorithm may be performed recursivelyfor each child constituent. During backward recursion the structurecontrol rules (they are a part of referential and structural controldescription 856), related to the surface slots of this constituent, arechecked, and, if the control rule has not detected a suitable non-treelink, the constituent is deleted. Otherwise, the movements which aredescribed in the surface slots of this constituent are restored. If themovement cannot be restored, the constituent is deleted.

In the end of the considering of each hypothesis about surface structureof a constituent final rating of the hypothesis is computed. If thefinal rating of the current hypothesis is higher than the preliminaryrating of the next hypothesis, the search is stopped. This algorithm ofbuilding 2240 the surface structure is a two-level search withindependent selection and filtering at each level. At the upper levelhypotheses are generated and assigned their ratings. These hypothesesconsist of three components: lexical meaning, surface slot, andsyntactic form. At the lower level hypotheses corresponding to specificsyntactic forms are analyzed. The best hypothesis is represented by abest surface structure, which is a tree (best surface tree), the nodesof which are constituents with selected lexical meanings andcorresponding syntax forms and the branches are the surface slots. As aresult of the step 2240, the surface structure of the sentence to begenerated with the best rating is build.

FIG. 24 is an exemplary best surface (syntactic) structure of theRussian sentence which is obtained as result of translating the Englishsentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” according to oneembodiment of the invention on the basis of the semantic structure whichis shown on FIG. 21. Restoring 2260 movements and determining the linearorder is performed for the best surface structure. During this stepreferential and structural control is checked and movements arerestored. The relations of control may be represented in the surfacestructure by means of non-tree links. Some non-tree links may bedescribed in the semantic structure 2002, for example, in case, when thesemantic structure 2002 was obtained as result of analysis of somesentence. The movements may be represented in the surface structure bymeans of non-tree links too, or otherwise, corresponding non-tree linksmay be restored by means of special structural control rules.

A movement is a phenomenon of various natural languages. The movementswhich must be restored, may be of different types, such as,communicative movements (subject rise, cleft-constructions), stylisticmovements (object rise), grammatical movements (relativization,interrogatory sentences, etc.), among others. Accordingly, the differenttypes of movement may express different communicative or stylisticaspects, for example, to mark out the focus or emphasis of the sentenceto be generated. This may entail a modification of a linear order. As aresult, the sentence to be generated may be more colloquial and close toreal time situation and a natural language. For example, the sentence“John is a good boy and it seems that John loves Mary.” may begenerated, but “John is a good boy and seems to love Mary.” is more realand spoken, and the later may be generated through movement of “John”because of a co-ordination.

The other example of sentence which may be generated from thelanguage-independent semantic structure formally following the Englishlanguage rules is “I′ve met a boy my sister likes [whom].” This sentencemay be transformed into more usable variant “I′ve met a boy whom mysister likes.” by movement of “whom”.

The referential and structural control description 856 is used innon-tree links generation, during which proforms may be inserted,non-tree links may be established, and all rules of correspondencebetween the controller and controlled object are checked. Structuralcontrol check allows filtering out wrong surface structures. Therelations between the controlling constituent—controller—and theconstituent controlled by it are checks. For example, a verb attributeof a noun phrase can generally be expressed by a participial clause or arelative clause. This element (the verb attribute) is represented insurface structure by auxiliary element named a proform which is insertedby a structure control rule and may be controlled by the noun phrase. Ifthe controlled proform is related to the subject, both the variants arepossible, otherwise only a relative clause is possible. An attempt touse a participial clause in order to realize a verb attribute of a nounphrase in the control rule fails, and thus such a variant is discarded.Non-tree links which have not been interpreted by structure controlrules get interpreted by referential control rules at the correspondingproforms. Consequently, every lexical meaning connected with a proformmay have its referential control rule.

The non-tree links on the surface (syntactic) structure for the Russiansentence which is obtained as result of translating the above mentionedEnglish sentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” accordingto one embodiment of the invention are shown on FIG. 24. The non-treelinks are shown as dotted arrows. These non-tree links may be kept inthe language-independent semantic structure, for example, in the casewhen this language-independent semantic structure was obtained as resultof analysis of the sentence in the same or another natural language. Inthe other case, the non-tree links may be restored according thereferential and structural control description 856. A non-tree link oftype “Anaphoric Model—Subject” 2410 is established from the constituent“

:BOY” 2420 to the constituent “

:BOY” 2430 to identify the subjects of the two parts of the complexsentence. Additionally, a non-tree link of type “Conjunction link” joinstwo parts of the complex sentence.

Additionally, determining precise values of relational grammaticalcategories is executed. The relational grammatical categories mayexpress grammatical properties of a child constituent, such as a gender,a number and so on, which depend on properties of the parentconstituent. The agreement rules 2246 are used for determining precisevalues of relational grammatical categories. Sometimes for a full andunambiguous determining a grammatical meaning, control rules have to betaken into account. For example, there is not enough information in thesurface structure 2204 to generate sentences “I met Mary with herdaughters.”, or “I met John with his daughters.”, or “I met the Smithcouple with their daughters.” In these examples the gender or number ofa possessive pronoun is determined by a controller (controlling element)therefore only control rules, which are included into referential andstructural control description 856, can determine values of thesecategories. Transforming a proform into a personal, reflexive orrelative pronoun, or into an empty proform is also performed at thisstage. It is done by means of assigning to the proform a correspondingrelational meaning by the control rule.

The linear order is determined after detecting relational grammaticalmeanings because they may affect the linear order (for example, the typeof a pronoun). At this stage the syntform 812 which has correspondinglinear order description 816 is already known. A communicative formwhich realizes communicative semantemes for the syntform must beselected on the basis of communicative description 880, and the order ofslots is synthesized. Communicative forms are searched in the order oftheir description. The first form which meets all the requirements andincludes all slots is selected. If the search has been failed to selecta suitable communicative form, a neutral order is synthesized.

The result of the stage 2260 is a fully defined (specified) surface(syntactic) structure 2204 of the sentence to be generated where foreach constituent a lexical meaning of the core, surface slots and theirfillers, and their linear order are specified according to syntacticdescription 502, referential and structural control description 856,communicative description 880, agreement rules 2246, among others. Thisstage 2260 and the previous lexical selection 2220 on the basis of rules2224 of lexical selection and structure correction allow the system toget the surface (syntactic) structure 2204, which express the semanticmeaning of the sentence to be generated in the given natural language asfully and precisely(exactly) as possible.

The morphological synthesis 2280 of the constituent cores is performedon the basis of the morphological description 501. The grammatical valueof a constituent core is determined on the basis of the grammaticalvalue of the constituent and the already-detected syntactic form. Eachsyntactic form may have a rule of agreement of the grammatical value ofthe constituent and the morphological value of the core. This agreementrule determines the morphological value of the core.

Prior to generating a word form with the help of the morphologicaldescription 501, a lexeme must be selected which corresponds to theselected grammatical value. It is necessary because each lexical meaningmay be associated with a set of lexemes which encode, for example,different dialects or even separate word forms of the lexical meaning.For example, the lexical meaning “cow” in English may be associated notonly with the lexeme “cow”, but with “bull” and “calf”, among others.The required lexeme may be selected according to the value ofgrammatical category “Gender”, and additionally, according to thepresence of semanteme “Baby”. The morphological value of the core issynthesized according to morphological grammemes, for example, for thenoun—according to the grammemes of the number, the case must be takeninto account in English, for the verb—the grammemes of the number,person, tense, participle type, among others. As a result of processsteps 2220, 2240, 2260 and 2280, a sentence in the output naturallanguage may be generated according to the language-independent semanticstructure. For above mentioned example, the result of translating theEnglish sentence “This boy is smart, he'll succeed in life.” accordingto one embodiment of the invention into Russian is the sentence “

,

”

During each step shown in FIGS. 1 and 5A the user of the computer systemcan view and, if necessary, select each of the interim and resultingstructures. By performing the lexical, morphological and syntacticanalyses of a sentence, a syntactic structure as a tree of generalizedconstituents can be established. The syntactic structure of a sentenceis transformed into a semantic structure by semantic interpretation oflanguage-specific elements of the syntactic structure of the sentenceand a tree of surface constituents are transformed into a tree of deepconstituents and a language-independent semantic structure is formed.During the building 560 of the output natural language sentence byperforming the lexical selection on the semantic structure, building asurface structure of the sentence to be generated in the given naturallanguage the syntactic structure as a tree of surface constituents canbe build. On the syntactic structure of a sentence movements arerestored and the linear order is determined, the morphological synthesisof the cores of constituents is performed to obtain the natural languagesentence.

A computer system implemented as a computer program with its owninterface or as part of another system in accordance with the method ofthe invention includes means for entering natural-language text; meansfor segmenting text into sentences, words, letters, and non-textsymbols; means for searching translations in a database, means for fuzzysearch of translations in a database, means for searching translationsin dictionaries, means for subsequently replacing the differing partswith translations from a terminology or translation dictionary, meansfor providing syntactically coherent output, means for lemmatization andfinding for each source word form a complete set of its grammatical andlexical meanings; means for constructing, in accordance with the modelof each lexical meaning, constituents which are the realizations ofthese models in a given sentence; means for constructing one or moregeneralized constituents from constituents constructed by using variousmodels available for each lexical meaning of a source word form; meansfor building a graph of generalized constituents covering all thehypotheses about the possible syntactic structures of the sentence;means for calculating a rough rating of constituents which are includedinto generalized constituents; means for generating hypotheses about themost probable precise structure of the sentence based on the roughratings and for selecting the structure with the highest value of therating; means for calculating the precise ratings for the selected, mostprobable syntactic structure constituents which are included intogeneralized constituents; means for establishing non-tree links; meansfor establishing correspondences for each surface slot of eachconstituent in the tree of constituents with deep slots; means forcalculating the set of semantemes of each constituent on the basis ofthe set of grammemes; means for substituting each lexical meaning in thesemantic tree with its language-independent semantic class; means forstoring in a database the constructed semantic structure for further usein other applications.

Further, the computer system in accordance with the method of theinvention includes means for storing and displaying a semanticstructure; means for the lexical selection of lexical meaning of thespecific language for each constituent core; means for correction ofsemantic structure in any specific natural language; means forselecting, in accordance with the model of each lexical meaning, surfaceslots and syntactic forms which realize the deep slots of the semanticstructure in the given specific language; means for calculating the setof grammemes of each constituent on the basis of the set of semantemes;means for an alternative realization of the lexical meaning by ananother semantic class; means for building the hypotheses about thepossible syntactic structures of the output sentence; means forcalculating a rating of hypotheses about the possible syntacticstructures of the output sentence; means for selecting a structure withthe highest rating value; means for restoring movements; means fordetermining precise values of relational grammatical categories; meansfor determining the linear order on the basis of the communicativedescription; means for the selecting the grammatical forms; means forthe morphological synthesis; means for displaying the obtained naturallanguage sentence and storing it in a database for further use in otherapplications, for example, in the translation database. Also, thecomputer system can implement all the methods, steps, actionsautomatically.

FIG. 25 illustrates an example of a suitable computing systemenvironment on which the invention may be implemented. A system 2500 isprovided and is only one example of a suitable computing environment andis not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use orfunctionality of the invention. The computing environment or system 2500should not be interpreted as having any dependency or requirementrelating to any one or combination of components as illustrated herein.

The system 2500 may be a general purpose computing device in the form ofa computer. Components of the system 2500 may include, but are notlimited to, a processing unit, such as a processor 2510, a system memory2520, and a system bus 2512 that couples various system componentsincluding the system memory 2520 to the processing unit 2510. The systembus 2512 may be any of several types of bus structures including amemory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus usingany of a variety of bus architectures.

The system 2500 may generally include a variety of computer readablemedia. Computer readable media can be any available media that can beaccessed by the system 2500 and includes both volatile and nonvolatilemedia, removable and non-removable media. By way of example, and notlimitation, computer readable media may comprise computer storage media(storage device) 2540 and communication media, such as an input device2550 and an output device 2560.

The invention is operational with numerous other general purpose orspecial purpose computing system environments or configurations.Examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/orconfigurations that may be suitable for use with the invention include,but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, mainframecomputers, multiprocessor systems, hand-held or laptop devices,microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumerelectronics, network PCs, minicomputers, distributed computingenvironments that include any of the above systems or devices, and thelike.

The invention may be described in the general context ofcomputer-executable instructions, such as program modules, beingexecuted by a computer. Generally, program modules include routines,programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. The invention mayalso be practiced in distributed computing environments. In adistributed computing environment, program modules may be located inboth local and remote computer storage media including memory storagedevices. In one embodiment, various program applications, programmodules, etc., such as a translation application 2530 are loaded intothe memory 2520 and run by the processor 2510. The translationapplication may be adapted to perform the steps of the methods asdescribed herein. A translation database 2570 and dictionaries 2580 maybe located in a storage device 2540.

FIG. 26 illustrates another example of a system 2600 in accordance withone embodiment of the invention. The system 2600 may include aprocessing unit, such as a processor 2610, a memory 2620 and a networkinterface 2670. The memory 2620 may include a translation application2630 adapted to perform translation of a source sentence into an outputsentence using methods as described herein according to one or moreembodiments of the invention. The translation application 2630 may be,for example, a machine translation program for translating a sentencefrom an input language into an output language.

The memory 2620 may also include computer storage media in the form ofvolatile and/or nonvolatile memory such as read only memory (ROM) andrandom access memory (RAM). A basic input/output system (BIOS),containing the basic routines is typically stored in ROM. RAM typicallycontains data and/or program modules that are immediately accessible toand/or presently being operated on by the processor 2610. These dataand/or program modules are located in the memory 2620 or is loaded intomemory when a program is called upon. Then the program is started andexecuted by the processor 2610 under the control of an operating system.For example, RAM may contain the operating system, various applicationprograms, such as the translation application 2630, other programmodules, and program data.

A translation database and dictionaries may be located in a storagedevices 2640. The storage device 2640 may be represented by bothvolatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable storage mediaimplemented in any method or technology for storage of information, suchas computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules orother data. The storage device 2640 may include, but is not limited to,RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM,digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magneticcassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magneticstorage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store thedesired information and which can be accessed by the system 2600. Anyother removable/non-removable, volatile/nonvolatile computer storagemedia can be used.

A user may enter commands and information into the system 2600 throughinput devices 2650, such as a keyboard 2658, a microphone 2656, ascanner 2654 and a pointing device, such as a mouse, trackball or touchpad. Other input devices (not shown) may include a joystick, game pad,satellite dish, scanner, or the like.

These and other input devices are often connected to the processor 2610through a user input interface that is coupled to the system bus 2612,but may be connected by other interface and bus structures, such as aparallel port, game port or a universal serial bus (USB). A monitor, adisplay 2662, or other type of display device is also connected to thesystem bus 2612 via an interface, such as a video interface. In additionto the display 2662, the system 2600 may also include other peripheraloutput devices, such as speakers 2666 and printers 2664, which may beconnected through an output peripheral interface.

A source sentence to be translated by the translation application 2630may be for example, entered from the keyboard 2658 and selected on thescreen of the display 2662. As another example, a source sentence to betranslated by the translation application 2630 may be received afterbeing recognized from a graphical input (for example, being recognizedas PDF, TIF, JPG, BMP, and other files) through optical characterrecognition (OCR) applications or after being sent by the fax 2652 andthen scanned by the scanner 2654, etc. A microphone 2656 and a speechrecognition system can also be used and adapted for machine translation.

The system 2600 may operate in a networked environment using logicalconnections to one or more remote computers. The remote computer may bea personal computer, a hand-held device, a server, a router, a networkPC, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includesmany or all of the elements described above relative to the system 2600.The network connections depicted in FIG. 26 can include, for example, alocal area network (LAN) 2690 or a wide area network (WAN), such as theInternet 2680. Such networking environments are commonplace in offices,enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets, and the Internet.

When used in a LAN networking environment, the system 2600 is connectedto the LAN through a network interface 2670 or adapter. When used in aWAN networking environment, the system 2600 may additionally include amodem or other means for establishing communications over the WAN, suchas the Internet. It will be appreciated that the network connectionsshown are exemplary and other means of establishing a communicationslink between the systems and computers may be used.

FIG. 27 is an example of a translation module 2700 according to oneembodiment of the invention. The translation module 2700 may include asearch module 2710 and a NLC module 2720. The translation module 2700may also interface with a program interface 2760 and a user interface2770 to interact with other programs and a user, respectively.Additionally, the translation module 2700 may include a memory 2750or/and a database 2740 for storing translations equivalents and variousintermediate information.

The translation module 2700 may interact via the program interface 2760with other applications. For example, the translation module 2700 mayreceive a source sentence from a speech recognition application 2782after converting the source sentence into a text after speechrecognition. As another example, a source sentence may be received froman optical character recognition (OCR) application 2784 after convertingan image of the source sentence into a text after optical recognition ofthe image. The program interface 2760, the user interface 2720, and thenetwork interface 2786, etc., are used to provide communication betweenthe translation module 2700 and its users via a LAN or WAN, such as theInternet.

The invention is superior to the known art as it uses various linguisticdescriptions of a given natural language to reflect all the realcomplexities of the natural language, rather than simplified orartificial descriptions, without the danger of a combinatorialexplosion. A principle of integral and purpose-driven recognition, i.e.hypotheses about the structure of the part of a sentence are verifiedwithin the hypotheses about the structure of the whole sentence, isimplemented as during the analysis stage as during the synthesis stage.It allow to avoid analyzing numerous parsing anomalous variants. Allavailable information from linguistic descriptions of the outputlanguage is used.

While the foregoing is directed to embodiments of the present invention,other and further embodiments of the invention may be devised withoutdeparting from the basic scope thereof, and the scope thereof isdetermined by the claims that follow.

1-26. (canceled)
 27. A computer method of representing in a computermemory a natural language sentence in a language-independent formatcomprising: preforming syntactic analysis of a natural language sentenceincluding selecting a syntactic structure based on one or more ratings;and performing a semantic analysis so as to transition the selectedsyntactic structure into a language-independent semantic structure,including selecting a preferred semantic structure based on one or moreratings.
 28. The method of claim 27 wherein the ratings includes apriori assessment.
 29. The method of claim 27 wherein the ratings arebased on statistics reflecting the frequency of constructions andcombinability of the syntactic structure elements or semantic structureelements.
 30. The method of claim 27 wherein the ratings are based onstatistics reflecting the frequency of constructions and combinabilityof the syntactic structure elements and semantic structure elements. 31.The method of claim 27 wherein the ratings are based on statisticsconcerning one or more of the following: semantic and lexical classes,lexemes, deep and surface slots, syntforms, communicative forms,diathesis relations, grammatical and semantic values.
 32. The method ofclaim 27, wherein the ratings comprise combinatorial ratings for thesurface elements and deep elements.
 33. The method of claim 32, whereinthe combinatorial ratings comprise a probability or combinability ofobjects of certain semantic classes being combined with objects of thesame or another semantic class.
 34. The method of claim 32, wherein thecombinatorial ratings comprise a probability of objects of certainsemantic classes being combined with certain deep slots.
 35. The methodof claim 27, further comprising generating statistics.
 36. The method ofclaim 35, wherein generating statistics comprises analyzing anassortment of texts to calculate probability and combinability ofoccurrences of syntactic structure elements or semantic structureelements.
 37. The method of claim 35, wherein generating statisticscomprises analyzing an assortment of texts to calculate probability andcombinability of occurrences of syntactic structure elements andsemantic structure elements.
 38. The method of claim 36, wherein theassortment of texts is selected from the group consisting of paralleltexts, tagged texts, and domain-specific texts.
 39. The method of claim35, wherein generating statistics includes analyzing natural-languagesentences of parallel texts and comparing syntactic and semanticstructures.
 40. The method of claim 35, wherein generating statisticscomprises matching a deep structure of a sentence in a source languageto a deep structure of the sentence in a target language andestablishing a correspondence between elements of the deep structures.41. The method of claim 40 further comprising matching a surfacestructure of the sentence in the source language to a surface structureof the sentence in the target language derived from previouslyestablished correspondence between the deep structure elements.
 42. Themethod of claim 40, wherein the statistics is generated from structureelements for which a correspondence has been found in the deepstructures of the source and target sentences.
 43. The method of claim40, wherein the statistics is generated on possible structurescorresponding to the sentence in the source language and possiblestructures corresponding to the sentence in the target language.
 44. Themethod of claim 27 further comprising using database of terms andcorresponding rules for detection of systematic errors.
 45. A computermethod of synthesizing a sentence in a target language from alanguage-independent semantic structure that conveys the meaning of asource sentence in the source natural language comprising: performingsyntactic structure synthesis so as to generate a syntactic structureincluding performing a lexical selection on the language-independentsemantic structure based on at least one of the ratings using linguisticdescriptions of the target language; and performing morphologicalsynthesis on the syntactic structure to generate the target sentenceusing morphological and lexical descriptions of the target language. 46.The method of claim 45 wherein the ratings include one or more of thefollowing: rating of the lexical meaning, rating of the deep slotsfilling, ratings of identifying word-combinations, ratings of deep slotscorrespondences, bonus for derivational semantemes, rating ofcorrespondence to the local and global pragmatic context, rating ofcorrespondence to the terminological sphere, rating of correspondence tothe previous selection.
 47. The method of claim 45 wherein ratingsinclude ratings based on relations between the parent and childconstituents and non-tree links.
 48. The method of claim 45 wherein theratings includes a priori assessment.
 49. The method of claim 45 whereinthe ratings are based on statistics reflecting the frequency ofconstructions and combinability of the syntactic structure elements orsemantic structure elements.
 50. The method of claim 45 wherein theratings are based on statistics reflecting the frequency ofconstructions and combinability of the syntactic structure elements andsemantic structure elements.
 51. The method of claim 45, wherein theratings comprise combinatorial ratings for the surface elements and deepelements.
 52. The method of claim 51, wherein the combinatorial ratingscomprise a probability or combinability of objects of certain semanticclasses being combined with objects of the same or another semanticclass.
 53. The method of claim 51, wherein the combinatorial ratingscomprise a probability of objects of certain semantic classes beingcombined with certain deep slots.
 54. The method of claim 45, furthercomprising generating statistics.
 55. The method of claim 54, whereingenerating statistics comprises analyzing an assortment of texts tocalculate probability and combinability of occurrences of syntacticstructure elements or semantic structure elements.
 56. The method ofclaim 54, wherein generating statistics comprises analyzing anassortment of texts to calculate probability and combinability ofoccurrences of syntactic structure elements and semantic structureelements.
 57. The method of claim 55, wherein the assortment of texts isselected from the group consisting of parallel texts, tagged texts, anddomain-specific texts.
 58. The method of claim 54, wherein generatingstatistics includes analyzing natural-language sentences of paralleltexts and comparing syntactic and semantic structures.
 59. The method ofclaim 58, wherein generating statistics comprises matching a deepstructure of a sentence in a source language to a deep structure of thesentence in a target language and establishing a correspondence betweenelements of the deep structures.
 60. The method of claim 59 furthercomprising matching a surface structure of the sentence in the sourcelanguage to a surface structure of the sentence in the target languagederived from previously established correspondence between the deepstructure elements.
 61. The method of claim 59, wherein the statisticsis generated from structure elements for which a correspondence has beenfound in the deep structures of the source and target sentences.
 62. Themethod of claim 59, wherein the statistics is generated on possiblestructures corresponding to the sentence in the source language andpossible structures corresponding to the sentence in the targetlanguage.
 63. The method of claim 45 further comprising using databaseof terms and corresponding rules for detection of systematic errors. 64.A computer-implemented method of representing combinability of elementsof linguistic descriptions, at least some of the linguistic descriptionsare organized as hierarchies, wherein two of the elements are members ofrespective hierarchies, comprising: performing semantic analysis ofelectronically-stored texts to determine combinability statisticsbetween elements of linguistic descriptions present in the texts; andstoring combinability statistics between the two elements of linguisticdescriptions of the hierarchies as a sum of logarithms ofcombinabilities of elements from the first hierarchy with elements inthe second hierarchy, wherein the elements from the second hierarchyhave the same ancestor element.
 65. The method of claim 64 wherein thecombinability statistics determined for higher levels of the hierarchiesis used as combinability statistics for lower levels.
 66. Acomputer-implemented method of identifying word combinations in a sourcelanguage and corresponding likely translations in a target languagecomprising: performing semantic analysis on a text in the sourcelanguage; performing semantic analysis on a text in the target language,which is a translation of the text in the source language; matching deepstructures of sentences in the text in the source language to deepstructures of sentences in the text in the target language; determininga correspondence between deep structure elements for sentences withessentially matching deep structures; and identifying word combinationsin the source and the target languages that substantially often matchinto each other through corresponding deep structure elements as likelytranslations.
 67. The method of claim 66 further comprising using thelikely translations to generate additional translation rules.
 68. Themethod of claim 66 further comprising identifying instances where thelikely translations based on analysis of translated texts deviate fromtranslations performed by a machine translation system so as to detecterrors in language models and translation rules of the machinetranslation system.
 69. A computer system comprising: a processor; and astorage medium coupled to the processor, the storage medium storinginstructions which when executed by the processor cause the computersystem to perform a method for representing in a computer memory anatural language sentence in a language-independent format, theinstructions comprising: preforming syntactic analysis of a naturallanguage sentence including selecting a syntactic structure based on oneor more ratings; and performing a semantic analysis so as to transitionthe selected syntactic structure into a language-independent semanticstructure, including selecting a preferred semantic structure based onone or more ratings.
 70. The computer system of claim 69 wherein theratings includes a priori assessment.
 71. The computer system of claim69 wherein the ratings are based on statistics concerning one or more ofthe following: semantic and lexical classes, lexemes, deep and surfaceslots, syntforms, communicative forms, diathesis relations, grammaticaland semantic values.
 72. The computer system of claim 69, wherein theratings comprise combinatorial ratings for the surface elements and deepelements.
 73. The computer system of claim 72, wherein the combinatorialratings comprise a probability or combinability of objects of certainsemantic classes being combined with objects of the same or anothersemantic class.
 74. The computer system of claim 69, further comprisinggenerating statistics.
 75. The computer system of claim 74, whereingenerating statistics includes analyzing natural-language sentences ofparallel texts and comparing syntactic and semantic structures.
 76. Thecomputer system of claim 74, wherein generating statistics comprisesmatching a deep structure of a sentence in a source language to a deepstructure of the sentence in a target language and establishing acorrespondence between elements of the deep structures.
 77. A computersystem comprising: a processor; and a storage medium coupled to theprocessor, the storage medium storing instructions which when executedby the processor cause the computer system to perform a method forsynthesizing a sentence in a target language from a language-independentsemantic structure that conveys the meaning of a source sentence in thesource natural language, the instructions comprising: performingsyntactic structure synthesis so as to generate a syntactic structureincluding performing a lexical selection on the language-independentsemantic structure based on at least one of the ratings using linguisticdescriptions of the target language; and performing morphologicalsynthesis on the syntactic structure to generate the target sentenceusing morphological and lexical descriptions of the target language. 78.The computer system of claim 77 wherein the ratings include one or moreof the following: rating of the lexical meaning, rating of the deepslots filling, ratings of identifying word-combinations, ratings of deepslots correspondences, bonus for derivational semantemes, rating ofcorrespondence to the local and global pragmatic context, rating ofcorrespondence to the terminological sphere, rating of correspondence tothe previous selection.
 79. The computer system of claim 77 wherein theratings includes a priori assessment.
 80. The computer system of claim77 wherein the ratings are based on statistics concerning one or more ofthe following: semantic and lexical classes, lexemes, deep and surfaceslots, syntforms, communicative forms, diathesis relations, grammaticaland semantic values.
 81. The computer system of claim 77, wherein theratings comprise combinatorial ratings for the surface elements and deepelements.
 82. The computer system of claim 81, wherein the combinatorialratings comprise a probability or combinability of objects of certainsemantic classes being combined with objects of the same or anothersemantic class.
 83. The computer system of claim 77, further comprisinggenerating statistics.
 84. The computer system of claim 83, whereingenerating statistics includes analyzing natural-language sentences ofparallel texts and comparing syntactic and semantic structures.
 85. Thecomputer system of claim 83, wherein generating statistics comprisesmatching a deep structure of a sentence in a source language to a deepstructure of the sentence in a target language and establishing acorrespondence between elements of the deep structures.
 86. A computersystem comprising: a processor; and a storage medium coupled to theprocessor, the storage medium storing instructions which when executedby the processor cause the computer system to perform a method forrepresenting combinability of elements of linguistic descriptions, atleast some of the linguistic descriptions are organized as hierarchies,wherein two of the elements are members of respective hierarchies, theinstructions comprising: performing semantic analysis ofelectronically-stored texts to determine combinability statisticsbetween elements of linguistic descriptions present in the texts; andstoring combinability statistics between the two elements of linguisticdescriptions of the hierarchies as a sum of logarithms ofcombinabilities of elements from the first hierarchy with elements inthe second hierarchy, wherein the elements from the second hierarchyhave the same ancestor element.
 87. The computer system of claim 86wherein the combinability statistics determined for higher levels of thehierarchies is used as combinability statistics for lower levels.
 88. Acomputer system comprising: a processor; and a storage medium coupled tothe processor, the storage medium storing instructions which whenexecuted by the processor cause the computer system to perform a methodfor identifying word combinations in a source language and correspondinglikely translations in a target language, the instructions comprising:performing semantic analysis on a text in the source language;performing semantic analysis on a text in the target language, which isa translation of the text in the source language; matching deepstructures of sentences in the text in the source language to deepstructures of sentences in the text in the target language; determininga correspondence between deep structure elements for sentences withessentially matching deep structures; and identifying word combinationsin the source and the target languages that substantially often matchinto each other through corresponding deep structure elements as likelytranslations.
 89. The computer system of claim 88 further comprisingusing the likely translations to generate additional translation rules.90. The computer system of claim 88 further comprising identifyinginstances where the likely translations based on analysis of translatedtexts deviate from translations performed by a machine translationsystem so as to detect errors in language models and translation rulesof the machine translation system.
 91. A physical, non-transitorycomputer storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructionswhich when executed by a computer system cause said computer system toperform a method for representing in a computer memory a naturallanguage sentence in a language-independent format, the instructionscomprising: preforming syntactic analysis of a natural language sentenceincluding selecting a syntactic structure based on one or more ratings;and performing a semantic analysis so as to transition the selectedsyntactic structure into a language-independent semantic structure,including selecting a preferred semantic structure based on one or moreratings.
 92. The physical, non-transitory computer storage medium ofclaim 91 wherein the ratings are based on statistics concerning one ormore of the following: semantic and lexical classes, lexemes, deep andsurface slots, syntforms, communicative forms, diathesis relations,grammatical and semantic values.
 93. The physical, non-transitorycomputer storage medium of claim 91, wherein the ratings comprisecombinatorial ratings for the surface elements and deep elements. 94.The physical, non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 92,wherein the combinatorial ratings comprise a probability orcombinability of objects of certain semantic classes being combined withobjects of the same or another semantic class.
 95. The physical,non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 91, further comprisinggenerating statistics.
 96. The physical, non-transitory computer storagemedium of claim 95, wherein generating statistics includes analyzingnatural-language sentences of parallel texts and comparing syntactic andsemantic structures.
 97. The physical, non-transitory computer storagemedium of claim 95, wherein generating statistics comprises matching adeep structure of a sentence in a source language to a deep structure ofthe sentence in a target language and establishing a correspondencebetween elements of the deep structures.
 98. A physical, non-transitorycomputer storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructionswhich when executed by a computer system cause said computer system toperform a method for synthesizing a sentence in a target language from alanguage-independent semantic structure that conveys the meaning of asource sentence in the source natural language, the instructionscomprising: performing syntactic structure synthesis so as to generate asyntactic structure including performing a lexical selection on thelanguage-independent semantic structure based on at least one of theratings using linguistic descriptions of the target language; andperforming morphological synthesis on the syntactic structure togenerate the target sentence using morphological and lexicaldescriptions of the target language.
 99. The physical, non-transitorycomputer storage medium of claim 98 wherein the ratings include one ormore of the following: rating of the lexical meaning, rating of the deepslots filling, ratings of identifying word-combinations, ratings of deepslots correspondences, bonus for derivational semantemes, rating ofcorrespondence to the local and global pragmatic context, rating ofcorrespondence to the terminological sphere, rating of correspondence tothe previous selection.
 100. The physical, non-transitory computerstorage medium of claim 98, wherein the ratings comprise combinatorialratings for the surface elements and deep elements.
 101. The physical,non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 100, wherein thecombinatorial ratings comprise a probability or combinability of objectsof certain semantic classes being combined with objects of the same oranother semantic class.
 102. The physical, non-transitory computerstorage medium of claim 98, further comprising generating statistics.103. The physical, non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 102,wherein generating statistics includes analyzing natural-languagesentences of parallel texts and comparing syntactic and semanticstructures.
 104. The physical, non-transitory computer storage medium ofclaim 102, wherein generating statistics comprises matching a deepstructure of a sentence in a source language to a deep structure of thesentence in a target language and establishing a correspondence betweenelements of the deep structures.
 105. A physical, non-transitorycomputer storage medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructionswhich when executed by a computer system cause said computer system toperform a method for representing combinability of elements oflinguistic descriptions, at least some of the linguistic descriptionsare organized as hierarchies, wherein two of the elements are members ofrespective hierarchies, the instructions comprising: performing semanticanalysis of electronically-stored texts to determine combinabilitystatistics between elements of linguistic descriptions present in thetexts; and storing combinability statistics between the two elements oflinguistic descriptions of the hierarchies as a sum of logarithms ofcombinabilities of elements from the first hierarchy with elements inthe second hierarchy, wherein the elements from the second hierarchyhave the same ancestor element.
 106. The physical, non-transitorycomputer storage medium of claim 105 wherein the combinabilitystatistics determined for higher levels of the hierarchies is used ascombinability statistics for lower levels.
 107. A physical,non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon a sequenceof instructions which when executed by a computer system cause saidcomputer system to perform a method for identifying word combinations ina source language and corresponding likely translations in a targetlanguage, the instructions comprising: performing semantic analysis on atext in the source language; performing semantic analysis on a text inthe target language, which is a translation of the text in the sourcelanguage; matching deep structures of sentences in the text in thesource language to deep structures of sentences in the text in thetarget language; determining a correspondence between deep structureelements for sentences with essentially matching deep structures; andidentifying word combinations in the source and the target languagesthat substantially often match into each other through correspondingdeep structure elements as likely translations.
 108. The physical,non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 107 further comprisingusing the likely translations to generate additional translation rules.109. The physical, non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 107further comprising identifying instances where the likely translationsbased on analysis of translated texts deviate from translationsperformed by a machine translation system so as to detect errors inlanguage models and translation rules of the machine translation system.